HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
********
WRIT PETITION NOs.12146 AND 15644 OF 2017 W.P.No.12146 of 2017:
Between:
Gousia Begum w/o. Abdul Sami, Aged about 38 years, Unemployee, r/o.H.No.20-113/1, Road No.4, Sharadanagar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy district and others.
.... Petitioners and The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Register (Admn.), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and others.
..... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 29.12.2022 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : No may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : No see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017 -2- * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO + WRIT PETITION NOs.12146 AND 15644 OF 2017 %29.12.2022 W.P.No.12146 of 2017:
# Gousia Begum w/o. Abdul Sami, Aged about 38 years, Unemployee, r/o.H.No.20-113/1, Road No.4, Sharadanagar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy district and others.
.... Petitioners and $ The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Register (Admn.), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and others.
..... Respondents !Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M.Surender Rao in WP No.16544 of 2017, Smt. B.Rachana Reddy in WP No. 12146 of 2017 Counsel for the Respondents : Smt. V.Uma Devi in WP No.15644 of 2017, Sri Swaroop Oorilla, in W.P.No.12146 of 2017 <Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
(1991) 3 SCC 47 ; (2010) 7 SCC 678; 2018 LF (SC) 1114; (2005) 9 SCC 22; (1994) 1 SCC 126; (2007) 12 SCC 465; (2006) 1 SCC 779; 2010 (2) SCR 239, (2019) 12 SCC 798; (1993) 1 SCC 154 PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017 -3- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.12146 AND 15644 OF 2017 COMMON ORDER : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao) Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri M.Surender Rao appearing for learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.15644 of 2017, Smt B.Rachana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.12146 of 2017, Smt V.Uma Devi, learned counsel appearing for the High Court in W.P.No.15644 of 2017 and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned counsel appearing for the High Court in W.P.No.12146 of 2017.
2. In these two writ petitions, petitioners participated in the selection process for recruitment to the Post of Junior Assistants and Typists respectively in pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 19.02.2015. Results of the written examination to the post of Junior Assistants and Typists were announced and the candidates were called for interview. At that stage, the selections were cancelled.
Challenging the same, these writ petitions are filed.
3. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the order impugned does not assign reasons for cancellation. Even the counter affidavit is silent on reasons for cancellation of selections to the posts of Junior Assistants and Typists. He further submitted that it may be true that PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017 -4- the employer has got indefeasible right to cancel the selection process and mere inclusion in the selection list does not vest any right for insisting to be appointed, but whenever selection process is undertaken and is at the stage of culminating selection process into appointments, for any reason, selections are sought to be cancelled, reasons must be assigned for such cancellation and decision cannot be made in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. From the facts on record, it is apparent that arbitrary decision was taken to cancel the selections for the post of Junior Assistants and Typists only.
Even according to the averments in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, the irregularities noticed were to the post of Office Subordinate. Further, in the same selection process, selections were conducted to the post of Stenographers, but their selection was not cancelled. Therefore, cancellation is arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. In support of his contentions learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decisions in Shankarsan Dash Vs Union of India1, East Coast Railway and another Vs Mahadev Appa Rao and others2 and Gagandeep Singh Vs The State of Punjab and others3.
5. Smt V.Uma Devi, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.No.15644 of 2017 would submit that there were large scale irregularities in the recruitment process. Therefore, 1 (1991) 3 SCC 47 2 (2010) 7 SCC 678 3 2018 LF (SC) 1114 PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017 -5- decision was taken to cancel all the selections in both the States and to initiate fresh selection process. It cannot be said as arbitrary decision made by the respondents. She also placed reliance on the decisions in Shankarsan Dash Vs Union of India (supra), Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Malkiat Singh4, State of Bihar & Others Vs Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union & Others5, Director, SCTI for Medicine Science and Technology Vs M.Pushkaran6, Union of India Vs Kali Dass Batish7, and Rakhi Ray & Others Vs The High Court of Delhi & Others8.
6. Learned Counsel Smt. B.Rachana Reddy, supplemented the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel. She submitted that in her writ petition also no reasons are assigned why selections to the post of Typists were cancelled. She also referred to the vigilance letter dated 21.02.2017 filed along with the counter to contend that even that letter is silent on reasons for cancellation of selections. She sought to contend that the decision relied upon by learned Standing counsel in the case of Rakhi Ray (supra) and Malkiat Singh (supra) stands on different facts and therefore, do not come to the rescue of the respondents to justify their illegal cancellation.
4(2005) 9 SCC 22 5 (1994) 1 SCC 126 6 (2007) 12 SCC 465 7 (2006) 1 SCC 779 8 2010 (2) SCR 239 PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017 -6-
7. Sri Swaroop Oorilla learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.12146 of 2017 submitted that Clause 14 of General Instructions of recruitment notification vests power in the respondent to cancel the selection at any time and the present cancellation is made in exercise of such power and it cannot be said as illegal exercise of power. He would submit that the cancellation was on administrative grounds and it is not necessary to spell out what are the administrative grounds for cancellation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Shankarsan Dash (supra), Rakhi Ray (supra), Malkiat Singh (supra), W.P.No.42874 of 2016 and W.P.Nos.29407 of 2016 and Batch.
8. In reply learned Senior Counsel Sri M.Surender Rao, submits that the two decisions in W.P.No.42874 of 2017 dated 09.09.2019 and W.P.No.29407 of 2016 & batch dated 24.03.2017 relied upon on behalf of High Court are not applicable to the facts of these cases.
Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.42874 of 2017 on assigning of reasons is contrary to the well established principle of law and it is no more a good law.
9. He would submit that in W.P.No.29407 of 2016 and batch of writ petitions, the recruitment process was to the post of Office Subordinate. This Court noticed that for a very few number of posts PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017 -7- notified, more than 13,000 applicants have applied and selection was confined to interview process only and whenever selections are confined to interview process, there can be allegations of irregularities. Having noticed that irregularities were committed, decision was rendered. In these cases, there is no allegation of irregularities in the recruitment to the post of Junior Assistants and Typists and therefore, those decisions do not come to the aid of the respondents.
10. The cancellation of selection process to public employment has been the subject of innumerable decisions of the Constitutional Courts. We have noted hereunder few decisions, which have eloquently discussed the extent of right of a selected candidate, scope of judicial review of decision to cancel selection process and parameters for consideration by the appointing authority/authority competent to take decisions to cancel the selection process.
10.1. In Shankarsan Dash (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated the scope of right of a candidate included in the select list. Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017 -8- vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] , or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899]."
10.2. In East Coast Railway (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter.
15. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in UT of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh [(1993) 1 SCC 154 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 144 : (1993) 23 ATC 431] where again this Court reiterated that while a candidate who finds a place in the select list may have no vested right to be appointed to any post, in the absence of any specific rules entitling him to the same, he may still be aggrieved of his non- appointment if the authority concerned acts arbitrarily or in a mala fide manner. That was also a case where the selection process had been cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration upon receipt of complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which the select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board. An inquiry got conducted into the said complaint proved the allegations made in the complaint to be true. It was in that backdrop that action taken by the Chandigarh Administration was held to be neither discriminatory nor unjustified as the same was duly supported by valid reasons for cancelling what was described by this Court to be as a "dubious selection".
16. Applying these principles to the case at hand there is no gainsaying that while the candidates who appeared in the typewriting test had no indefeasible or absolute right to seek an appointment, yet the same did not give a licence to the competent authority to cancel the examination and the result thereof in an arbitrary manner. The least which the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment and who had appeared in the examination that constituted a step-in-aid of a possible appointment in their favour, were entitled to is to ensure that the selection process was not allowed to be scuttled for mala fide reasons or in an arbitrary manner.
PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017 -9-
17. It is trite that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness which is an antithesis of the guarantee contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Whether or not the cancellation of the typing test was arbitrary is a question which the Court shall have to examine once a challenge is mounted to any such action, no matter the candidates do not have an indefeasible right to claim an appointment against the advertised posts."
10.3. Dealing with the aspect of arbitrariness in East Coast Railway (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "22. Dealing with the principle governing exercise of official power Prof. De Smith, Woolf and Jowell in their celebrated book on Judicial Review of Administrative Action emphasised how the decision-maker invested with the wide discretion is expected to exercise that discretion in accordance with the general principles governing exercise of power in a constitutional democracy unless of course the statute under which such power is exercisable indicates otherwise. One of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law recognised in all democratic systems is that the power vested in any competent authority shall not be exercised arbitrarily and that the power is exercised that it does not lead to any unfair discrimination. The following passage from the above is in this regard apposite:
"We have seen in a number of situations how the scope of an official power cannot be interpreted in isolation from general principles governing the exercise of power in a constitutional democracy. The courts presume that these principles apply to the exercise of all powers and that even where the decision- maker is invested with wide discretion, that discretion is to be exercised in accordance with those principles unless Parliament clearly indicates otherwise. One such principle, the rule of law, contains within it a number of requirements such as the right of the individual to access to the law and that power should not be arbitrarily exercised. The rule of law above all rests upon the principle of legal certainty, which will be considered here, along with a principle which is partly but not wholly contained within the rule of law, namely, the principle of equality, or equal treatment without unfair discrimination."
23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable."
PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017
- 10 -
10.4. In Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others Vs South East Central Railway & Others Etc.,9, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was emphasized that it is mandatory to assign reasons in support of the decision and if the decision is not supported by reasons, the same is liable to be set aside on that ground and writ petitions are liable to be allowed. Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "6. Our country is governed by the rule of law. Arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law. When an employer invites applications for filling up a large number of posts, a large number of unemployed youth apply for the same. They spend time in filling the form and pay the application fees. Thereafter, they spend time to prepare for the examination. They spend time and money to travel to the place where written test is held. If they qualify the written test they have to again travel to appear for the interview and medical examination, etc. Those who are successful and declared to be passed have a reasonable expectation that they will be appointed. No doubt, as pointed out above, this is not a vested right. However, the State must give some justifiable, non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post. When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot without any rhyme or reason decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts. The courts would normally not question the justification but the justification must be reasonable and should not be an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion vested in the State. It is in the light of these principles that we need to examine the contentions of SECR." (emphasis supplied) 10.5. In Commissioner of Police and another vs. Umesh Kumar (Civil Appeal No.3334 of 2020 dated 07.10.2020), Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "14. The real issue, however, is whether the respondents were entitled to a writ of mandamus. This would depend on whether they have a vested right of appointment. Clearly the answer to this must be in the negative. In Punjab State Electricity Board and others vs. Malkiat Singh [(2005) 9 SCC 22], this Court held that the mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment. The Court held:
9(2019) 12 SCC 798 PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017
- 11 -
"4. Having considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error in proceeding on the basis that the respondent had got a vested right for appointment and that could not have been taken away by the subsequent change in the policy. It is settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer on such candidate any vested right to get an order of appointment. This position is made clear in para 7 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95] which reads : (SCC pp. 50-51).
xxxx
7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] ."
(emphasis supplied) 10.6. In W.P.No.29407 of 2016 and three other writ petitions, the cancellation of selection to 69 posts of Office Subordinates in the Unit of West Godavari District was challenged. The selection was based on interviews. 10,727 candidates were interviewed to select 69 candidates. A select list of 207 candidates prepared in the ratio of 1:3 was sent to High Court by the Principal District Judge. By proceedings dated 07.12.2015, the approval of the list was communicated by the Registrar (Recruitment) and direction was also PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017
- 12 -
issued to issue appointment orders. However, before actual appointment, orders could be issued the High Court directed cancellation of selection. In the counter-affidavit, the Registrar (Recruitment) asserted that large scale illegalities were reported from several Districts and therefore, uniform decision was taken to cancel the selection process undertaken in all the Districts. Selection process in West Godavari District was also taken. Division Bench has held, "11. It is true that no specific irregularities were noticed by the High Court in the matter of selection of Office Subordinates in West Godavari District. But it is not possible for the Registry of the Court to go on a case to case basis. If a decision is taken to maintain uniformity and to avoid any allegation of discrimination, the same cannot be assailed on the ground that in respect of one District, there were no allegations of irregularities. The time tested principle of law that justice should not only be done but also appeared to have been done, would apply equally to cases of this nature.
12. The principle that the non recording of reasons by an administrative authority for its decision would be violative of the principles of natural justice, cannot be invoked in a case of this nature. The decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [AIR 1990 SC 1984], cannot go to the rescue of the petitioners. While dealing with the case of an individual who was imposed with a punishment by General Court Martial, the Supreme Court observed in the said decision that the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice. But the Court was dealing in that case, with the case of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions in the said case. But in cases of this nature, where the entire selection is cancelled for reasons, which are fairly objective, the said principle will not have any application.
13. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sankarsan Dash v. Union of India2 to drive the home point that an arbitrary exercise of power cannot stand scrutiny. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the cancellation of the selection was arbitrary.
14. But we do not think so. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit narrates the circumstances under which the selection was cancelled. We do not find that there was anything arbitrary in the decision taken by the Court.
PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017
- 13 -
15. As a matter of fact we should point out that for appointment to 69 posts, 13,740 candidates had applied. The only method of selection was by oral interview. Though the post for which recruitment was sought to be made was only the post of Office Subordinate, the attempt to shortlist candidates only on the basis of oral interview, can sometimes come under the cloud of suspicion. The selection of 69 candidates from out 13,000 candidates only on the basis of performance in oral interview, may not really be considered to be the best method of selection. Therefore, if a policy decision had been taken by the Court to cancel the selection so that a scientific method of selection could be evolved, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. More over as rightly pointed out by the respondents, a mere inclusion in the select list does not confer any right upon a candidate to seek appointment. This principle has been reiterated in any number of decisions of the Supreme Court. The proposition is too well settled that it does not require any stand. Therefore, in the result, we find no illegality in the action of the respondents in cancelling the selection. Hence, all the writ petitions are dismissed." (emphasis supplied) 10.7. W.P.No.42874 of 2016 also concerns cancellation of selection process to the post of Office Subordinate. The Division Bench held, "A bare perusal of the letter dated 03.08.2016 clearly reveals that the selection process was cancelled on "administrative grounds". There is no requirement of law to specify the "administrative ground" for which the selection process was cancelled. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the selection process was cancelled without giving any reasons for the same, thus, arbitrarily. (emphasis supplied) 10.8. In Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh10 after considering the law enunciated in Shankarsan Dash (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "12. If we have regard to the above enunciation that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, 10 (1993) 1 SCC 154 PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017
- 14 -
when the Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in that regard, we are unable to find that the Chandigarh Administration had acted either arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons in cancelling such dubious select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents as to the sustainability of the judgment of CAT under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the respondents (candidates in the select list) is a misconceived one and is consequently rejected."
(emphasis supplied)
11. The law as it emerges from precedent decisions is that there is no indefeasible right of appointment merely because a candidate is empanelled for employment after undergoing selection process.
Employer can cancel the selection process at any stage till orders of appointment are issued. However, such cancellation cannot be made in an arbitrary manner. There must be compelling reason to cancel the selection process. Reasons must be recorded and a well considered decision be taken to cancel the selection process. There are millions of un-employees. Un-employees anxiously wait to secure public employment. They strive hard, spend sleepless nights and give their best in the selection process. Having undergone the grueling selection process and selected, a hope is generated to secure public employment. Therefore, when employer seeks to cancel the selection process after the entire process is completed and a select list is prepared, there must be compelling reason fortified by material on record. However, a decision to cancel the selection process need not be declared as illegal merely because reasons for cancellation were not PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017
- 15 -
communicated to the candidates or no reasons are assigned in the order of cancellation as long as such decision is backed by detailed assessment. One of the essential requirements to make recruitment to public service is, it must be transparent and free from allegations of bias, favoritism and personal choices of recruiting authority.
Therefore, whenever complaints of irregularities are made, such complaints must be looked into in all seriousness and if there is element of doubt in purity of selection process, the selection process ought to be abandoned and fresh selections have to be held.
12. In the cases on hand, the recruitment process was annulled after the provisional selection list was approved by the competent authority. Guided by the above principle of law, it is necessary to consider whether any justification is made out to cancel the selection process. It is appropriate to note that no reasons were communicated to the candidates why selection process was annulled.
13. In the counter-affidavit of 1st respondent, deposed by Registrar (Recruitment), in both writ petitions, it is asserted that large scale irregularities in selection of Office Subordinates in several districts had come to the notice of the High Court. Based on the report of the Vigilance Cell, a decision was taken to scrap the entire selection process to the posts of Office Subordinates, Junior Assistants and Typists etc. It is further asserted that the High Court constituted a PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017
- 16 -
Committee of Judges to examine the existing rules and procedures to consider whether any amendments are required to ensure fair and transparent process of selection.
14. With reference to selections to the posts of Junior Assistants and Typists in then combined Ranga Reddy District, we have called for records where the decision to cancel the selection process was taken and have gone through the record. The record discloses that a complaint was received alleging irregularities in the selection process in Ranga Reddy District. After conducting a discrete enquiry, a report was submitted by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
After considering the said report, a learned senior Judge of this Court was asked to probe into the allegations and offer his views. Learned Judge submitted his report on 27.01.2017. Matter was then considered by the Administrative Committee of the High Court and resolved to cancel the selection process of Typists and Junior Assistants in then Ranga Reddy District.
15. It is thus apparent that having noticed irregularities in the selection process, on due consideration of reports of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the learned senior Judge of this Court, the selection process was annulled. It is a well considered decision. The cancellation was for bona fide reasons. We do not see any illegality in the impugned decision warranting our interference.
PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017
- 17 -
The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
______________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J ______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO,J Date: 29.12.2022 Rds/KKM PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017
- 18 -
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.12146 AND 15644 OF 2017 Date: 29.12.2022 Rds/kkm