Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Ruchir Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3259 of 2023, CM APPL No. 14097 of 2023, 19816 of 2023 & 36265 of 2023
Decided On : 24-08-2023
Mr. Gagan Gupta, Mr. Sachin Gupta and Ms. Yashi Agrawal, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.N. Koura, Mr. S. Sirish Kumar and Mr. Nirbhay Narain Singh, Advocates, for R-2.
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Sandeep Singh Samaria, Advocates with Mr. Mritunjay, Director with Mr. Vikash, for the Respondent.
Mr. Arvind Varma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohan Thawani, Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Mr. Pratul Pratap Singh, Ms. Smridhi Sharma and Ms. Ambica Sundaram, Advocates, for R-5.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 16 - Employment criteria - Preference for Chartered Accountants over Cost Accountants in CPSE appointments deemed constitutionally justified; no violation of fundamental rights found. (Paras 2, 41, 66)
(B) Mandamus - Scope of mandamus under Article 226; cannot issue relief not prayed for by the petitioner; expert committee decisions upheld. (Paras 45, 76)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Chief General Manager in a CPSE, challenges the preference for Chartered Accountants in director-level appointments, claiming it is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights. He was not shortlisted for an interview despite meeting qualifications.
Findings of Court:
The distinction between Chartered and Cost Accountants is justified based on the roles; the decision of the expert committee stands validated, and obligations of appointment processes cited.
Issues: Whether Cost Accountants can be treated as equivalent to Chartered Accountants for Director (Finance) roles; Can the court issue mandamus for preference clause removal?
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that distinctions based on qualification do not violate Article 14/16; preference given to Chartered Accountants is rationally linked to job requirements; courts typically defer to expert bodies unless there’s a clear mala fide or procedural irregularity.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks relief regarding appointment qualifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. interim orders allowed candidate participation but acknowledged ongoing proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. petitioner argues reinstatement of qualifications violates fundamental rights. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. respondents defend preference established based on job-related qualifications. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. expert committees' decisions upheld unless malfeasance established. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. court delineates classification rationality under constitutional provisions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. court examines requirements of articles 14 and 16 in the selection process. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. classification based on experience upheld as reasonable. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. differentiation between chartered accountants and cost accountants established. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 10. court finds no merit in petitioner's claims. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 11. mandamus scope discussed alongside the need for prayers in petitions. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 12. final observations on expert decision legitimacy. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 13. court rejects reliance on previous judgments due to differing circumstances. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 14. clarifies petitioner's lack of standing based on non-selection. (Para 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 15. candidates cannot contest selection post-interview failure. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 16. petitioner did not approach with clean hands. (Para 74 , 75) |
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Issue interim reliefs being sought by the Petitioner by way of the present petition as given in Grounds A and B under Grounds for Interim Relief;
b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court, directing Respondent No.1 to do away with the `Qualification' clause added in JD qua appointment of Director (Finance) in CPSEs whereby which preference has been given to Chartered Accountants over Cost Accountant;
c) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiriori or any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court, directing Respondent No.1 to quash the list of shortlisted candidates dated 10.03.2023 qua the appointment of Director (Finance) in Respondent No.2 company;
d) Pass any other or further orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case."
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts of the instant Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the respondent no.2 (`respondent Organization' hereinafter) in 1994 and is currently working as Chief General Manager (Corporate Finance & Treasury) under the H Grade. The respondent Organization is a schedule-A Central Public Sector Enterprise (`CPSE' hereinafter) in the petroleum sector with the administrative jurisdiction of respondent no. 3 (`respondent Ministry' hereinafter). The respondent no. 1 (`respondent Body' hereinafter) is a high-powered body constituted by the Government of India for appointment of top management posts in various CPSEs including the respondent Organization.
3. In the instant case, the respondent Body published an advertisement/JD 131/2022 under notification 7/69/2022-PESB dated 25th November, 2022, for the vacant post of Director (Finance) with respondent Organization. The Director (finance) in the respondent Organization is a member on the board of directors and reports to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Organization.
4. The said advertisement/JD prescribed eligibility criteria being that of age, employment status, qualification, experience and pay scale for the said post. Pursuant to an internal meeting dated 19th August, 2021, it was decided to prefer Chartered Account
