The Andhra Pradesh High Court has determined that although it is possible to abandon a selection process, such action can only be taken for valid reasons. In a recent case, the court overturned the cancellation of a selection process for various government positions that had been initiated eight years earlier, citing a lack of valid reasons. The court stressed that decisions of this nature must be substantiated with sound reasoning and evidence, and cannot be arbitrary.
Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao issued this ruling in response to a series of writ petitions filed by individuals whose appointments as typists, copyists, and personal assistants were cancelled eight years after the initial notification. The court referred to previous legal precedents, including Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana & Others, Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India & Others, and East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others.
In 2011, the District Judge of Guntur launched a selection process for several posts. The petitioners participated in tests and interviews and were included in the provisional list. However, in 2019, the High Court cancelled the process without providing reasons. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that it was arbitrary, prejudiced their interests, and violated their legitimate expectations.
After reviewing records from both the High Court and the District Judge, the court found no valid reasons for the cancellation. There was no investigation into any alleged misconduct during the selection process, nor was there any preliminary assessment made before the decision was taken. The court emphasized that while authorities have the prerogative to cancel a selection process, this must be done for valid reasons and cannot be arbitrary. The lack of justification for the cancellation led the court to conclude that the decision was arbitrary and therefore overturned.
The court also noted that the cancellation would be unjust to the previously selected candidates, as they might no longer be eligible to apply for the positions.
The case was Shaik Mahaboob John vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh (WP .8648 of 2019 & Batch). Petitioners were represented by Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, Srinivasa Rao Narra, and P.V.N. Kiran Kumar, while Maheswara Rao Kuncheam served as counsel for the respondents.
