SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Del) 890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA and CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
PENSION FUND REGULATORY & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PFRDA) – Petitioner
Versus
SUBROTO DAS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 6981 of 2015, 113 of 2016
Decided On : 15-03-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shanker Raju
For the Respondents: Mr. Prateek Tushar Mohanty, Ms. Monika Arora, Mr. Harsh Ahuja

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of meeting minimum eligibility qualifications for appointments and the implications of the absence of statutory rules on the appointment process.

Headnote:

PFRDA - Appointment Dispute - Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 2013 - Section 3 - Summary: The court discussed the appointment dispute related to the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 2013. It highlighted the lack of eligibility qualifications of the appointed candidates, the relaxation of eligibility criteria, and the implications of the absence of statutory rules on the appointment process.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the appointment of candidates to the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA). The petitioners challenged the appointment of certain individuals to the post of Chief General Manager, citing lack of eligibility qualifications.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointed candidates did not meet the minimum eligibility qualifications and that there was no evidence of relaxation of eligibility criteria. It also noted that the petition challenging the appointments was barred by limitation and dismissed due to delay and laches.

Issues: The main issues included the lack of eligibility qualifications of the appointed candidates, the alleged relaxation of eligibility criteria, and the delay in filing the petition challenging the appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointed candidates did not meet the minimum eligibility qualifications and that there was no evidence of relaxation of eligibility criteria. It also found that the petition challenging the appointments was barred by limitation and dismissed due to delay and laches.

Final Decision: The court set aside the appointment of the candidates and dismissed the petition challenging the appointment of another candidate.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

This common order and judgment would dispose of the aforestated two writ petitions, which impugn order dated 29th June, 2015, passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short), in OA No. 3695/2013 Dr. Prafulla Ranjan & Another Vs. Pension Fund Regulatory & Development Authority & Others and OA No.937/2014, filed by Subroto Das against the Pension Fund Regulatory & Development Authority (PFRDA, for short).

2. Dr. Praffula Ranjan and Sunil Agarwal had filed OA No. 3695/2013 challenging the appointment of Subrorto Das, Mamta Rohit and Anant Gopal Das to the post of Chief General Manager in the PFRDA.

3. The PFRDA had subsequently terminated the appointment of Subroto Das and Mamta Rohit vide order dated 13th March, 2014. Subroto Das had challenged the aforesaid order of termination in OA No. 937/2014 before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. By an interim order dated 20th March, 2014 operation of the termination order was stayed. Mamta Rohit has also challenged the order of termination, albeit before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal. This OA is still pending and has not been disposed of, possibly to await the outcome of the present writ petitions. The operation of the order of termination in the case of Mamta Rohit has been stayed vide the interim order dated 3rd April, 2014.

4. By the impugned order dated 29th June, 2016, OA No. 3695/2013, filed by Dr. Praffula Ranjan and Sunil Agarwal has been dismissed and the OA No. 937/2014 filed by Subroto Das has been allowed, quashing the order of termination dated 13th March, 2014.

5. The PFRDA had also filed W.P. (C) No.6982/2015 against the impugned order in OA No. 3695/2013, which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 2nd September, 2015, recording that Dr. Prafulla Ranjan and Sunil Agarwal had challenged the impugned order in the OA No. 3695/2013 in WP(C) No. 113/2016. The file of W.P. (C) No.6982/2015 was directed to be tagged with the file of W.P. (C) No.6981/2015.

6. The PFRDA was established by the Government of India vide notification dated 10th March, 2003 and granted statutory recognition vide Section 3 of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 2013. The PFRDA is a body regulating the pension sector schemes including the National Pension Scheme.

7. In the 21st Meeting of the PFRDA Board held on 13th October, 2010, the revised organization plan and the issue of recruitments were discussed. As per the revised plan, 177 posts or positions were required, of which only 12 had been requisitioned, thus leaving a gap of 165 posts for which recruitment was to be made. The pay-scales and the eligibility qualifications for different posts were finalized based on the eligibility qualifications stipulated by the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) with some modifications to suit PFRDA’s organizational requirements.

8. Consequent thereto, vide note dated 13th December, 2010 recruitment of 43 posts including two posts of Chief General Manger in the scale of Rs.60600-67000 were moved for approval and initiation of the selection process. Dr. Anoop Wadhawan, the then Chairman of the PFRDA, who was impleaded as a respondent in the OA No. 3695/2013, and is also a respondent in W.P. (C) No. 113/2016, vide his note dated 21st December, 2010 made amendments to the approved eligibility qualifications by introducing an alternative qualification of first class graduate degree from a reputed university, so as to not restrict ambit of selection to only those with Master’s degree in Economics/MBA in Corporate Finance or financial management with 55% marks in aggregate. The Chairman, the noting observed, had been authorized by the Board to relax any of the conditions in deserving cases. This modification was not placed before the Board for approval at that stage. Post facto approval was granted by the






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top