Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Akul Bhargava - Appellant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3509 of 2020 and CM Appl. 12452 of 2020
Decided On : 09-10-2020
WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ALTERNATE REMEDY - JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - FORUM NON CONVENIENS - NATURAL JUSTICE - SELECTION PROCESS - IAS APPOINTMENT - NON-SCS OFFICERS - CANCELLATION OF INTERVIEWS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - BREACH - JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - EXERCISE OF - CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING - HELD, WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Non-State Civil Service Officers (Non-SCS) of the State of Rajasthan and aspirants for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) of Rajasthan Cadre, for the year 2018, in the Non-SCS Category, challenged the letter dated 31st December 2019 issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)/Respondent No.1, vide which, their interviews scheduled to be held on 31st December 2019 and 1st January 2020, by the Selection Committee, were cancelled. The stand of the Petitioners is that two members of the Selection Committee who were to be nominated by the Government of India, according to Regulation 3 of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, were not nominated, because of which, the interviews, that were fixed for 31st December 2019 and 1st January, 2020, had to be cancelled. Thereafter, no steps have been taken to hold these interviews and the four vacancies, which were declared by the State of Rajasthan, have been subsumed in the vacancies for the next year.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that there are certain unusual and extraordinary circumstances in the present case, which warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. These circumstances include: (i) Non-SCS category Officers have not been promoted to the IAS since the last 3 to 4 years and there are repeated litigations being filed before the CAT in this regard. (ii) Repeated challenges are being raised by SCS Officers to the selection of Non-SCS candidates, as is evident from the filing of OA No. 291/138/2020, in which no effective proceedings have taken place. (iii) Since March 2020, there has been a lockdown owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused a disruption in the functioning of Tribunals and Courts. (iv) While on the one hand, the 2018 selection for the IAS Rajasthan Cadre was underway, at the very last minute the same was cancelled and it has been argued by the State of Rajasthan that these posts have now been subsumed in the vacancies for the subsequent year i.e. 2019. Thus, the passing of time is working to the detriment of the Petitioners. (v) The Petitioners were not given any opportunity to deal with the allegations, which are contained in the representations given by certain SCS category of officers to a Member of Parliament, leading to the Union of India not nominating its representatives to the Selection Committee and the subsequent cancellation of the interview. Thus, there is an allegation of breach of Principles of Natural Justice, which the Respondents would have to meet when the matter is heard on merits. (vi) There is divergence on the current functioning of CAT, Jaipur Bench which is stated to be currently hearing 2016 matters. It is argued that only 3 to 5 matters are being heard on a sporadic basis in the CAT, Jaipur Bench.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?2. Whether the cancellation of interviews by the Selection Committee was justified?3. Whether the Petitioners were given an opportunity to deal with the allegations against them?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that there are certain unusual and extraordinary circumstances in the present case, which warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. These circumstances include: (i) Non-SCS category Officers have not been promoted to the IAS since the last 3 to 4 years and there are repeated litigations being filed before the CAT in this regard. (ii) Repeated challenges are being raised by SCS Officers to the selection of Non-SCS candidates, as is evident from the filing of OA No. 291/138/2020, in which no effective proceedings have taken place. (iii) Since March 2020, there has been a lockdown owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused a disruption in the functioning of Tribunals and Courts. (iv) While on the one hand, the 2018 selection for the IAS Rajasthan Cadre was underway, at the very last minute the same was cancelled and it has been argued by the State of Rajasthan that these posts have now been subsumed in the vacancies for the subsequent year i.e. 2019. Thus, the passing of time is working to the detriment of the Petitioners. (v) The Petitioners were not given any opportunity to deal with the allegations, which are contained in the representations given by certain SCS category of officers to a Member of Parliament, leading to the Union of India not nominating its representatives to the Selection Committee and the subsequent cancellation of the interview. Thus, there is an allegation of breach of Principles of Natural Justice, which the Respondents would have to meet when the matter is heard on merits. (vi) There is divergence on the current functioning of CAT, Jaipur Bench which is stated to be currently hearing 2016 matters. It is argued that only 3 to 5 matters are being heard on a sporadic basis in the CAT, Jaipur Bench.2. The Court held that the cancellation of interviews by the Selection Committee was not justified. The Court observed that the Petitioners were not given any opportunity to deal with the allegations against them. The Court further observed that the cancellation of interviews has caused substantial injustice to the Petitioners.
Final Decision: The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the cancellation of interviews by the Selection Committee was not justified. The Court directed the Union of India to nominate its two members to the Selection Committee so that the Selection Committee can meet and complete the selection process on an early date.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. The judgment is pronounced through video-conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by 20 Petitioners, who are Non-State Civil Service Officers (hereinafter, "Non-SCS") of the State of Rajasthan and are all aspirants for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter, "IAS") of Rajasthan Cadre, for the year 2018, in the Non-SCS Category. They have challenged the letter dated 31st December 2019 issued by the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter, "UPSC")/Respondent No.1, vide which, their interviews scheduled to be held on 31st December 2019 and 1st January 2020, by the Selection Committee, were cancelled.
3. The stand of the Petitioners is that two members of the Selection Committee who were to be nominated by the Government of India, according to Regulation 3 of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, were not nominated, because of which, the interviews, that were fixed for 31st December 2019 and 1st January, 2020, had to be cancelled. Thereafter, no steps have been taken to hold these interviews and the four vacancies, which were declared by the State of Rajasthan, have been subsumed in the vacancies for the next year.
4. Preliminary objections have been raised by the Respondents that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the present petition and that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter, "CAT") is the appropriate forum to deal with the dispute in hand, in view of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter, "the Act").
Submissions
A. Petitioner's Submissions
5. Mr. Patwalia, ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has raised various objections in respect of the manner in which the entire process of recruitment is being stultified. He submits that as per the Indian Administrative Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, there are three methods of recruitment. One is by competitive examinations, second, by promotion and third, by selection in special cases. He submits that for the third category, the State Department concerned sends recommendations of number of persons amounting to five times the number of vacancies and accordingly, in the present case, 20 candidates were recommended by the State of Rajasthan for consideration, to fill the 4 vacancies with respect to the Non-SCS Officers in the IAS, Rajasthan Cadre.
6. Mr. Patwalia further submits that the UPSC had initially fixed the date for interviews on 31st December 2019, however, looking at the number of candidates, it had extended the said date for interviews to 1st January 2020. According to him, the candidates reached the UPSC on 31st December 2019, however, to their utter shock and surprise they were told that the Selection Committee had not convened, as two Members, who were to be appointed by the Government of India, were not appointed.
7. Ld. Senior Counsel, then relies upon the counter affidavit filed by Union of India to argue that the entire process of appointments is being set at naught by disgruntled officers belonging to the State Civil Services (hereinafter, "SCS Officers"), who are not only writing representations to various Members of Parliament but are also seeking political intervention in this matter. He submits that once the vacancies were finalized, the date of 31st December 2019 is not sacrosanct as the interviews were to even be held on 1st January 2020. Accordingly, the prayer of the Petitioners is that the Government of India should be directed to nominate its two Members to hold the interviews and the selection process should be allowed to proceed further, at the earliest.
8. Mr. Patwalia, further dealing with the submissions on maintainability of this writ petition, with respect to the availability of an `alternate remedy' urges as under:
i) First, he fairly concedes that approaching the CAT is always an option available to the Petitioners. However, in spite of the said remedy being
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
