A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, ruled on Writ Petitions in the case of Shaik Mahaboob John vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The court held that mere participation in a selection process does not automatically guarantee an absolute entitlement to appointment; however, valid and prima facie reasons are necessary before canceling such a selection procedure.
Background:
The District Judge, Guntur, issued notifications in 2011 for various posts like typists, copyists, and a personal assistant under the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003. The selection process included objective tests, skill assessments, and interviews held in January 2016. Provisional lists of selected candidates (Petitioners) were submitted to the High Court for approval. The High Court directed certain posts to be re-notified to comply with reservation orders, following which approved lists of selected candidates were published, and police verification forms were sent. However, in April 2019, the Registrar (Recruitment) of the High Court informed the District Judge, Guntur, about canceling the selection process for specific posts and initiating a fresh recruitment process with age relaxations.
The petitioners challenged this decision through writ petitions, arguing that the cancellation was arbitrary and prejudicial to selected candidates who participated in good faith. They contended that many candidates would now be ineligible due to age limitations for reapplying after eight years from the initial notifications.
On the other hand, the Respondents contended that participation in the selection process did not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, citing the advertisement notice which stated that the process could be cancelled without assigning reasons. They maintained that the cancellation was in accordance with the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003.
Court’s Findings:
The court emphasized that while a selection process can be abandoned, valid reasons are necessary. Mere participation does not guarantee an absolute right to appointment, citing the principle established in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India & Others. The court noted that cancellation without valid reasons and inquiry into allegations was arbitrary.
The court stressed the importance of recording prima facie satisfaction and conducting inquiries before canceling a selection process, referring to the precedent in East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others. Consequently, the court set aside the cancellation decision and disposed of the Writ Petitions accordingly.
