Summary
A candidate recommended for a fair-price-shop dealership challenged cancellation of the notified vacancies before any appointment order. The Court upheld West Bengal’s decision to align the distribution system with the National Food Security Act. Her recommendation created no vested appointment right, and legitimate expectation could not defeat the justified statutory reform. The State’s appeal was allowed and the Single Judge’s dismissal of the challenge restored.
Issues
- Whether recommendation in the unfinished dealership selection created a right to appointment or continuation of the vacancies.
- Whether legitimate expectation prevented cancellation to implement statutory distribution reforms.
Provisions considered
- Section 12(1) and (2)(e), National Food Security Act, 2013The statutory reform framework, including preference for public institutions and collective management, supported recalling vacancies not conforming to the Act. (¶¶ 18-21, 29-30)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaLegitimate expectation required fair consideration but did not override a lawful, justified public-interest decision; arbitrariness was not established. (¶¶ 9-14, 30)
Held
- Legitimate expectation forms part of fair, non-arbitrary decision-making. Its existence and weight depend on the circumstances and public interest; it does not necessarily create an independently enforceable entitlement to the expected outcome. (¶ 9-14)
- The vacancies were found inconsistent with the statutory distribution-reform framework. Cancelling them to implement the Act was justified, and there had been no promise that the existing policy would remain unchanged. (¶¶ 18-22, 29-30)
- Participation or recommendation in an unfinished selection did not vest an appointment right. The agency could recall the process on reasonable grounds; the respondent had not demonstrated arbitrariness, unreasonableness or mala fides here. (¶¶ 22-24, 30)
- Neither estoppel nor legitimate expectation could require continuation contrary to the statutory mandate. The fact that the Act preceded the vacancy notice did not establish that its requirements had actually been considered when the notice issued. (¶ 25-30)
Result
State appeal allowed. The Division Bench judgment was set aside and the Single Judge judgment restored, leaving the cancellation notification effective. Pending applications disposed of; parties to bear their respective costs.