Mere participation in the selection process does not guarantee an absolute right to appointment ,but a valid reason is required before canceling such a process: Andhra Pradesh High Court

A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of Shaik Mahaboob John vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held that merely participating in the selection process does not automatically ensure an absolute entitlement to appointment, however, valid and prima facie reasons are required before the cancellation of such a selection procedure. Background Facts The District Judge, Guntur, issued notifications in 2011 for various posts, including typists, copyists, and a personal assistant, inviting applications as per the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003. The selection process involved objective type tests, skill tests, and interviews conducted in January 2016. The lists of provisionally selected candidates (Petitioners) were sent for approval to the High Court (Respondent), which then directed some posts to be re-notified to comply with presidential orders regarding reservation. After approval, lists of provisionally selected candidates were published, and attestation forms were sent for police verification. However, in April 2019, the Registrar (Recruitment) of the High Court informed the District Judge, Guntur, about the decision to cancel the selection process for certain posts and directed a fresh recruitment process with age relaxations. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed the writ petitions. The petitioners contended that no reasons were provided for the cancellation, which was arbitrary and prejudicial to the interests of the selected candidates. The petitioners asserted that the cancellation of the selection process after eight years from the issuance of the initial notifications unfairly prejudiced the selected candidates as many of them would be ineligible to reapply due to age limitations, despite participating in the selection process in good faith. The petitioners further argued that the cancellation decision was made without conducting any inquiry into the allegations. On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that the petitioners did not have an indefeasible right to claim appointment based on their participation in the selection process. They argued that the advertisement notice for the recruitment explicitly stated that the selection process could be cancelled without assigning any reason. The respondent further asserted that the cancellation decision was made in accordance with the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003. Findings of the Court The court observed that while the selection process can be abandoned, it must be done for valid reasons. Mere participation in the selection process does not guarantee an indefeasible right to appointment. The court relied on the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India & Others wherein the Supreme Court held that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed but the decision not to fill up the vacancies had to be taken up in good faith for appropriate reasons. The court found that the cancellation of the selection process lacked valid reasons. Despite the petitioners' participation in the process, no justification was provided for the cancellation, which was deemed arbitrary. The court emphasized the need for valid reasons before cancelling a selection process. It highlighted the importance of recording a prima facie satisfaction and conducting inquiries into allegations before making cancellation decisions. The court relied on the case of East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others wherein the Supreme Court emphasized the need to record a prima facie satisfaction before proceeding to order cancellation of a selection process. Based on these observations, the court set aside the cancellation decision. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petitions were disposed of. Case No. : W.P.No.8648 of 2019Case Name : Shaik Mahaboob John vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Maheswara Rao KuncheamClick Here To Read/Download Order

Mere participation in the selection process does not guarantee an absolute right to appointment ,but a valid reason is required before canceling such a process: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

Mere participation in the selection process does not guarantee an absolute right to appointment ,but a valid reason is required before canceling such a process: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers