IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, C.J., R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
Shaik Mahaboob John, S/o. Shaik Sattar – Appellant
Versus
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Registrar General, Amaravathi and 2 others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.8648 of 2019 along with W.P. Nos.6853, 6855, 6861, 6863, 6866, 6870, 6873, 6875, 6876 & 7760 of 2019, 36864 of 2022
Decided on : 10-05-2024
Arbitrariness - Selection Process - A. P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 - The court emphasized that cancellation of a selection process must be justified with valid reasons, and arbitrary actions without inquiry are impermissible.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a challenge to the cancellation of a selection process for various posts by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was claimed to be arbitrary and lacking justification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the selection process was arbitrary as no valid reasons were provided, and there was no inquiry into the complaints that led to the cancellation.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the selection process was arbitrary and lacked sufficient justification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while authorities can abandon a selection process, they must provide valid reasons and cannot act arbitrarily.
Result: The cancellation order was set aside, and the selection process was directed to be completed within two months.
JUDGMENT :
Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, C.J.
In all the aforementioned 12 writ petitions, since common questions of law and fact arise, we propose to deal with them by way of a common order. Facts in W.P.No.8648 of 2019 are being referred to, for the sake of convenience.
W.P.No.8648 of 2019 has been filed challenging the decision taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in cancelling the entire selection process made to various posts including the 8 posts of typists, 11 posts of copyists and 1 post of Personal Assistant for the unit of the District Judge, Guntur. The decision is challenged primarily on the ground that the same suffered from the vice of arbitrariness as no reasons at all were given as to why the entire selection process was cancelled.
2. With a view to understand the controversy in the correct perspective, it is apt to refer to the material facts in brief:
The District Judge, Guntur, issued notifications inter alia for 8 posts of Typists vide the notification No.3, dated 22.10.2011, 11 posts of Copyists vide the notification No.4, dated 22.10.2011, and the notification No.2, dated 22.10.2011, for the post of 1 Personal Assistant for the unit of the District Judge, Guntur, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment as per the A. P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003.
3. It appears that the petitioners being eligible responded to the aforementioned three notifications and were subjected to objective type test based on OMR basis as also skill test which was conducted on 23.01.2016 and 24.01.2016 respectively. The interviews were scheduled on 26.01.2016 and were accordingly conducted. The list of candidates selected was sent for approval by the learned District Judge to the High Court on administrative side in accordance with the Presidential Order vide para 4 of Annexure appended to G.O.(P) No.763, GA (SPF-A) Department, dated 15.11.1975, and instructions issued by the High Court vide R.O.C.No.665/2005-RC, dated 10.06.2006. The High Court then vide proceedings, dated 10.06.2016, ordered the re-notification of one post of Copyist earmarked for O.C. (Ex-Serviceman) against Roster Point No.37 in the next recruitment to be filled up by a local candidate only to make it in accordance with the presidential orders. After the approval by the High Court, the District Court, Guntur, published the list of provisionally selected candidates for the post of 11 Copyists vide the notice, dated 16.06.2016.
4. Similarly, as against the list of 8 Typists sent to the High Court for approval, the High Court vide letter, dated 10.06.2016, approved the selections made for 7 out of 8 posts in regard to the notification No.3, dated 22.10.2011, while directing re-notification of one post of typist to O.C. (Ex-Serviceman) in the next recruitment for filling up only by a local candidate as per the presidential orders. It appears that on receipt of the approved list, the District Court, Guntur, published the list of provisionally selected candidates for the post of 7 Typists vide the notice No.3841, dated 16.06.2016.
5. The attestation forms of the provisionally selected candidates were also sent to the respective Police authorities and the Additional Director General of Police Intelligence for submission of verification reports within the stipulated time. A letter bearing No.7553, dated 24.11.2016, was also addressed to the High Court seeking permission to enable the District Court to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates subject to the receipt of police verification reports.
6. In response to the letter, dated 24.11.2016, the Registrar (Recruitment) on the directions of the High Court vide communication dated 06.12.2016 instructed the learned District Judge to await further orders, as regards the issuance of the appointment orders to the approved and selected candidates. Finally, by virtue of the impugned communication, dated 18.04.2019, issued by the Registrar (Recruitment), the learned Principal Dist
East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others
Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana & Others
Cancellation of a selection process requires valid reasons and cannot be arbitrary; authorities must conduct inquiries into complaints before making such decisions.
(1) Appointment – Normally, it is not for courts to interfere unless process smacks of mala fides – However, right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe a....
Cancellation of selection and reversion invalid if due to departmental evaluation errors without candidate fault, prior hearing, or inquiry; natural justice violated; innocents protected by equity, l....
Cancellation of advanced recruitment process solely for procedural lapse in agency engagement without RFP/EOI unjustified absent malpractice; must rest on cogent reasons, amenable to judicial review;....
Mere selection in recruitment does not confer indefeasible right to appointment if process tainted by procedural irregularities confirmed by inquiry; authority may bona fide withhold without hearing ....
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.