Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Vennapusa Ashok Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
The State of AP and Others - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 28916/2024
Decided On : 11-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging selection process for Manager (Mining) position - Petitioner, a contract employee, claimed arbitrary non-selection despite being shortlisted - Respondent contended that selection criteria were adhered to, and petitioner scored below minimum required marks - Court held that non-disclosure of minimum marks in notification does not vitiate selection if process is fair - Corrections in marks awarded raised concerns about transparency but did not alter outcome as petitioner failed to meet minimum criteria. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 21, 33)
(B) Selection Process - Judicial Review - Courts should not interfere with selection committee's decisions unless there is proven mala fides or serious procedural irregularities - The court cannot assume an appellate role over selection committee's expertise. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after working as Manager (Mining) on a contract basis, applied for the same position in a new selection process but was not selected due to scoring below the required marks. The selection process was challenged on grounds of lack of transparency and fairness.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while there were issues with the selection process, the petitioner did not meet the minimum score required for selection.
Issues: Whether the non-disclosure of minimum marks in the notification invalidates the selection process? Whether corrections in the marks sheet affect the validity of the selection?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the selection process must be fair and transparent, but the failure to disclose minimum marks does not automatically invalidate the process if the criteria applied are just and reasonable.
Result: Writ petition allowed; fresh interview panel to be constituted.
ORDER :
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not selecting the petitioner as Manager (Mining) in respondent No.2 organization, in pursuance of, employment notification dated 06.10.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner, who completed his Bachelor of Technology in Mining Engineering in the year, 2016 joined respondent No.2 organization in the year, 2019 and worked till 26.09.2024, on a contract basis. The respondents initially appointed the petitioner as Deputy Manager vide letter Ref.No.APMDC/HRD/Contract/2023/921 dated 21.09.2023 and later promoted the petitioner as Manager (Mining). The petitioner worked in the said capacity from 01.10.2023 to 26.09.2024. While so, respondent No.2 issued an employment notification dated 06.10.2024 for filling up various positions including 6 posts of Manager (Mining) (Location-Byrates Project, Mangampeta) on a contract basis for three years. The petitioner applied for the post of Manager (Mining). The petitioner’s application was shortlisted and he attended an interview scheduled on 20.11.2024. The interview committee informed the petitioner that he was one of the six shortlisted candidates. Five other shortlisted candidates received communication. However, the petitioner has not received any communication. The respondents, with a mala fide intention, have not considered the petitioner for the post of Manager (Mining). A contract employee cannot be replaced with another contract employee.
3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It was contended, interalia, that the petitioner was hired on a contractual basis for a limited period to meet the needs of the Barytes Project at Mangampet and his contract ended on 30.09.2024. Respondent No.2 issued an employment notification dated 06.10.2024 for filling up various positions. The selection process was carried out, in adherence to, the prescribed guidelines and the petitioner participated in the said process. As per the selection criteria, candidates are required to secure a minimum of 50% marks to qualify for appointment to any of the notified posts. Whereas the petitioner secured 19 marks out of 50. Hence, the petitioner’s candidature was rejected. The interview committee never informed the petitioner that he would be issued appointment orders. The post of Manager (Mining) in the Barytes Project is a post specifically intended to oversee the management and operational affairs of the project. Therefore, the petitioner’s reliance on the legal principle that a contractual employee cannot be replaced with another contractual employee does not apply to the facts of the case. After the expiry of the petitioner’s tenure, a fresh notification was issued. The petitioner having consciously participated in the selection process without challenging the notification cannot challenge the validity of the process. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. A reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was contended that Clause 10 of the employment notification does not speak about the minimum or maximum cut-off marks. However, respondent No.2 interview panel, in the middle of the employment process, arbitrarily and intentionally prescribed the cut-off marks as 50% and the same is unsustainable in the law. In the interview mark sheets, enclosed to the counter affidavit, only two members viz. Vice President (HMBS) and Executive Director have mentioned that a person, scored more than 25 marks may be for appointment and those who have got average marks of above 50% may be considered for appointment. The rule is inserted in the middle of the appointment process only to deprive the petitioner’s rights. The interview marks which are enclosed in the counter affidavit are manipulated and altered with an ulterior motive. The petitioner has got more than 25 marks as per the marks sheets enclosed to the counter. As
AI
The court affirmed that non-disclosure of minimum qualifying marks in a selection notification does not invalidate the process if it is fair and transparent, emphasizing the limited grounds for judic....
Recruitment criteria cannot be altered after the selection process begins, as it violates principles of fairness and predictability under public service law.
Introduction of new benchmarks in a selection process is permissible if justified by public interest and does not prejudice candidates.
Introduction of new benchmarks in a selection process is permissible if justified by public interest and does not prejudice candidates, despite the general principle against changing rules mid-proces....
Unsuccessful candidates participating in selection process without protest cannot challenge criteria or outcome later under approbation-reprobation doctrine; experience must strictly relate to applie....
The legitimacy of employment selections cannot be challenged solely based on familial relationships unless sinister motives or procedural violations are demonstrated.
The introduction of a minimum marks benchmark in a selection process is permissible if justified by public interest and does not cause prejudice to candidates.
The court ruled that the selection process for Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers was fraudulent, violating Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, and directed a fresh review based on actual ma....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
