The State of West Bengal vs Gitashree Dutta (Dey)
Background
The West Bengal government had notified Fair Price Shop (ration shop) dealership vacancies, and the respondent participated in the selection and was recommended as the first-priority candidate, but no final appointment order was ever issued. Before that happened, the State cancelled the vacancy notification altogether, citing the need to reform the public distribution system to align with the newly implemented National Food Security Act, 2013. The respondent challenged the cancellation; the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench sided with her, holding the State had acted arbitrarily and had failed to justify recalling the vacancies, and it quashed the cancellation notification.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of "legitimate expectation" does not override a statute or genuine public-interest policy changes, and that being a shortlisted or recommended candidate in an unfinalised selection process does not create a vested right to appointment. It found the cancellation was a bona fide step to implement the 2013 Act's mandate to reform the fair-price-shop distribution system, and that there was no evidence the State had acted arbitrarily, in bad faith, or contrary to any binding promise: indeed, there can be no estoppel against enforcing a statute. The Court restored the original Single Judge's order dismissing the respondent's challenge, holding the State was justified in cancelling the vacancy notification.
Lesson Learnt
Merely being recommended or shortlisted in a government selection process does not guarantee an appointment; a government can lawfully cancel a pending recruitment process where it does so in good faith to comply with a subsequent law or genuine public interest, since no one can claim an enforceable right against the State based on expectations alone.