Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Vijay Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission - Respondent
W.P.(C) 899 of 2021
Decided On : 23-12-2022
Eligibility criteria for direct recruitment cannot be modified post-selection; administrative actions must align with previously established rules without changing requirements retrospectively.
Headnote:(A) Indian Legal Service Rules, 1957 - Direct recruitment to posts - Applicants declared successful for Joint Secretary and Legal Advisor posts but not appointed due to new qualifications being imposed post-selection - Court held no new eligibility criteria could be introduced post-recommendation by UPSC. (Paras 1.7, 10, 12, 15)
(B) Contempt of Court - Non-compliance with court orders - Seeking clarifications on candidate's qualifications post accepting offers is unjustifiable - Court emphasized the principle that eligibility should not be altered after selection process is completed. (Paras 3.1, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were declared successful candidates for the role of Joint Secretary & Legal Advisor; offers of appointment were issued but delayed under the pretext of eligibility verifications. (Para 1.1)
Findings of Court:
The application for modification had no merit; new eligibility conditions were arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 10, 15)
Issues: Whether eligibility criteria can be modified post-selection and the authority of the Ministry to impose further requirements on candidates' qualifications. (Paras 3.6, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the decision taken by UPSC with respect to candidates' eligibility must stand; introducing new criteria at this stage is impermissible. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: The application for modification was dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the recruitment process and applicants. (Para 1) |
| 2. upsc's role and responsibilities regarding candidates. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments concerning the maintainability and nature of the application. (Para 3) |
| 4. submission of arguments regarding eligibility and objections raised. (Para 4) |
| 5. details of inquiries and recommendations from upsc. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 6. discussion on the timing and nature of objections. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 7. court's view on compliance and authority decisions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 8. court's dismissal of the application with cost. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
Talwant Singh, J.
CM APPL.8388/2022[Application filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 seeking appropriate limited modification/clarification in para 2 of the order dated 26.07.2021]
1. This is an application under Section 151 C.P.C. on behalf of respondent no.2 seeking modification/clarification in para 2 of the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by this Court.
1.1. It has been submitted that the above-mentioned writ petition was disposed of on 26.07.2021 with the direction as under:
"since the petitioners have been declared successful, the concerned respondent [i.e. Union of India] will give effect to the result as impugned judgement cannot, now, stand in their way. The net result will be that, the petitioners will stand appointed to the post of Joint Secretary and Legal Advisor in the Ministry of Law and Justice. Let the needful be done at the earliest, though not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".
1.2. It has been submitted that the issue relates to recruitment to the post of Joint Secretary & Legal Adviser (hereinafter referred to `JS&LA') (Grade-1 of Indian Legal Service) in Level-14 of Pay Matrix in the Department of Legal Affairs. The applicant/respondent no.2 had sent a proposal on 08.02.2018 to UPSC for filling up of 6 posts of JS&LA through direct recruitment basis. For these 6 posts, the UPSC recommended 5 candidates and kept the result of remaining one post in a sealed cover due to pending litigation.
1.3. It has been submitted that Rule 7(1) (a) of the Indian Legal Service Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to `ILS Rules') regarding direct recruitment provides as under:
"A person shall not be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to a duty post in Grade I, unless he has been a member of the Indian Civil Service permanently allotted to the judiciary or of a State Judicial Service for a period of not less than sixteen years or has held a superior post in the legal department of a State for a period of not less than sixteen years or a Central Government servant who has had experience in legal affairs for not less than sixteen years."
1.4. The candidates with 18 years' of experience were short-listed by UPSC and thereafter the selection was made. It is further submitted that respondent no.2/Ministry of Law and Justice has initiated steps to comply with order dated 26.07.2021 in respect of 2 candidates namely Shri Ashutosh Mishra and Shri Sher Singh Dagar. The process for verifying the qualifying experience was stated to be under consideration. Respondent no.2 had sent the offers of appointment to 5 candidates for the post of JS&LA, out of which 4 candidates have given acceptance for appointment. Respondent No.2 had sought approval of ACC for appointment of the petitioner no.1 and one Ms. Sunita Anand as JS&LA.
1.5. Respondent no.2 had written to UPSC seeking clarification regarding 2 candidates namely Shri Sher Singh Dagar and Shri Ashutosh Mishra, inquiring as to whether the UPSC had considered the total experience of Shri Sher Singh Dagar as 26 years, 3 months and 29 days as stated by him in his online application or his post-LLB qualification or experience, i.e., 15 years, 9 months and 15 days. In respect of Shri Ashutosh Mishra whose experience was mainly related to Administration and Establishment matters and where handling of litigation work has been mentioned, it can be taken as experie
