1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-

"i) In view of the submission made hereinabove it is most humbly prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and impugned letter dated 1.1.2019 including decision to the effect of cancellation of the selection process of petitioner by the Board of Directors taken 65th meeting may kindly be set-aside and quashed. Further, respondent may kindly be directed to restore the selection process and appoint the petitioner against his respective post."

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that advertisement No. 32-2/2016 (Annexure P-1), was issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, in the month of May, 2016, inviting applications inter alia for the post of Welder, three in number, on behalf of the H.P. Power Corporation Limited. The petitioner participated in the selection process and in terms of Press Note Annexure P-4, he was declared to be at No. 1 in the merit in the evaluation process. However, thereafter, vide Annexure P-6, dated 01.01.2019, the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited intimated the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission that in light of the decision taken in 65th BOD meeting held on 30.06.2018 and in view of future manpower requirement of HPPCL for its construction stage and Operation and Maintenance Stage Projects, the management of the Corporation has decided to discontinue with the process of recruitment of Welders. Thereafter, in light of Annexure P-6, appointment was not offered to the petitioner or any other person. As per the petitioner, despite the denial of the appointment to the petitioner on account of reasons spelled out in Annexure P-6, another advertisement was issued by the respondent-Corporation, which included the post of Welder, i.e. Annexure P-7 and in this background that the petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs prayed for.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the decision of the respondent-Corporation as was communicated vide impugned communication dated 01.01.2019 is arbitrary for the reason that on one hand the petitioner was denied appointment on the ground that the Corporation decided to discontinue with the process of recruitment of Welders in HPPCL in view of its future manpower requirement and on the other hand, vide Annexure P-7, it was recruiting manpower. This as per the learned Counsel was completely contradictory to the contents of Annexure P-6. Learned Counsel also referred to Annexure P-R1 appended with the rejoinder filed to the reply filed by the respondent-Corporation and submitted that arbitrariness in the decision of the respondent-Corporation can be further gauged from the said Annexure dated 21.11.2022, in terms whereof the services of a Welder have been outsourced from Himachal Pradesh State Electronics Development Corporation. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that petition be allowed as prayed for.

4. The petition is opposed by the respondent-Corporation. In the reply filed by the respondent-Corporation, it is stated that though the petitioner alongwith two other candidates was recommended against the post of Welder by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission but no offer of appointment was given to them and thus, no indefeasible right stood accrued upon the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, by referring to the contents of the reply, submitted that the Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation, in its 65th meeting held on 30.06.2018, on the recommendation of the Service Committee dated 02.06.2018, decided to withdraw the posts and manpower in the workmen category particularly Electrician, Fitter and Welder from Operation and Maintenance Stage Projects and to divert them to construction stage projects. As the posts in issue, i.e. post of Welder, were created with the aim to utilize their services in Operation and Maintenance Stage, therefore, the matter was taken up administratively by the Director (Electrical) with the Management of HPPCL and subsequently the management of the Corporation decided to retain the posts of Electrician and Fitter in the Operation and Maintenance Stage and to re-appropriate each three posts of Welders as well as Crane Operators to other equivalent categories. The administrative decision to this effect was approved by the Board of Directors in its 67th meeting held on 28.11.2018, and accordingly, requisition which was sent to the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, was requested to be withdrawn with further request to discontinue with the process of recruitment of Welders.

6. Learned Counsel further submitted that as far as the issuance of Annexure P-7 is concerned, there is complete misreading of the same by the petitioner as no post of Welder was filled in terms of Annexure P-7 but the same was only an advertisement to engage ITI pass candidates as Trade Apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961, which did not amount to offering appointment against any post. Learned Counsel also submitted that the decision was taken by the respondent-Corporation in the administrative interest of the Corporation and there is neither any arbitrariness in said decision nor any malafide involved in the same. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition being devoid of merit be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the process undertaken by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission on the requisition of respondent No. 2-Corporation to fill up three posts of Welders was not taken to its logical conclusion arbitrarily, which has resulted in denial of appointment to the petitioner against the post of Welder.

9. This Court is of the considered view that simply by participating in the process undertaken by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, to fill up three posts of Welder on the requisition placed in this regard by respondent No. 2, no indefeasible right vested in the petitioner on the basis of his being successful in the recruitment process.

10. It is a matter of record that in terms of Annexure P-6, respondent No. 2 requested Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, to discontinue with the process of recruitment of Welder in HPPCL on the basis of reasons assigned therein.

11. This Court is of the considered view that whether or not employees are to be recruited by an employer, is a call that has to be taken by the employer only and until and unless there is arbitrariness writ large on the face of it, decision taken in this regard by an employer cannot be interfered with by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In terms of Annexure P-6, the reason as to why the HPPCL decided to discontinue with the process of recruitment was that on the recommendations made by Service Committee it its meeting held on 02.06.2018, a decision was taken in the 65th meeting of the BOD of the respondent-Corporation to discontinue with the said recruitment process. It has been mentioned in the reply filed by the respondent-Corporation that the decision was taken as the recommendation of the Service Committee was to the effect that the posts and manpower in the workmen category particularly Electrician, Fitter and Welder were decided to be withdrawn from the Operation and Maintenance Stage so that they could be diverted to construction stage projects. This decision cannot be said to be an arbitrary decision as it appears that the same was taken by the respondent-Corporation in light of its requirements keeping in view of the fact that primarily the HPPCL is a power generation company. Besides this, Annexure P-7, which was an advertisement issued by the respondent-Corporation for engagement of Trade Apprentices, cannot be read as an advertisement issued for appointment against the trades and seats mentioned therein, which included the trade and seat of Welder also.

12. A five Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash Versus Union of India (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 47, [LQ/SC/1991/253] held that it is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that ordinarily notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post and unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.

13. This view was subsequently reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subha B. Nair and Others Versus State of Kerala and Others, (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 210, [LQ/SC/2008/1306] in which judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of filling up of the vacancies was pleased to hold that a decision on the part of an employer whether to fill up the existing vacancies was within its domain and on this limited ground, in the absence of discrimination or arbitrariness, a Writ Court ordinarily would not interfere in such matter.

14. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has again reiterated this principle in The State of Karnataka and Others vs. Smt. Bharathi S., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 472, in which judgment, after referring to its earlier decisions in Shankarsan Dass vs. Union of India (supra) and Subha B. Nair and Others Versus State of Kerala and Others (supra), on the facts involved, held as under:-

"11. The position that emerges from the above decisions is that the duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule In the absence of such a mandate, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List, is left to the wisdom of the State. We will however add that State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review."

15. Therefore, the mandate of law is that a successful candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed against a post after participation in a process of selection and whether or not to fill up the existing vacancy is strictly within the domain of the employer and a Writ Court ordinarily is not to interfere in such matters until and unless the decision of the employer has the smacks of discrimination or arbitrariness.

16. In the present case, as already observed hereinabove, the decision taken by the respondent-Corporation not to fill up the posts in issue was based on administrative exigency and the same could not be the result of arbitrariness or discrimination.

17. As far as the contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner that recently a post of Welder has been fill up by the respondent-Corporation by way of outsource, this in fact, fortify the stand of the respondent-corporation that it is not making any recruitment against the post of Welders.

18. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.