ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, (LUCKNOW BENCH)
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Sushil Kumar and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Legislative Council U.P. and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36 of 2021
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Recruitment - Legislative Council - U.P. Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1976; Article 226 - The court examined the legality of the recruitment process under the amended rules, emphasizing the need for fairness and adherence to statutory provisions in public service appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, appointed on a contractual basis, challenged the recruitment process for various posts in the Legislative Council, alleging nepotism and irregularities after failing the preliminary examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to substantiate their allegations of corruption and irregularities in the selection process, which was deemed fair and conducted according to the amended rules.
Issues: Whether the recruitment process was tainted by nepotism and irregularities, and if the petitioners had a right to continue in their contractual positions despite failing the examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that allegations of irregularities must be substantiated with credible evidence, and the recruitment process must command public confidence, adhering to the principles of fairness and legality.
Result: The petition was dismissed, allowing the recruitment process to stand and permitting petitioners to continue on a contractual basis if vacancies exist.
JUDGMENT :
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) :
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, who were appointed on contractual basis as per the scheme contained in the Government Order No. A-2/234/10-98-24(6)97 dated 22.5.1998 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Uttar Pradesh, providing that appointment to fill up vacancies in Legislative Council Secretariat arising in Class-III and Class-IV posts would be made on temporary/daily-wage-basis for a maximum period of six months at a time, and the said Government Order specifically mentioned that employees, appointed on temporary and daily-wage-basis, shall not have any claim for regularization.
2. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were given contractual appointments on the post of assistant review officer vide orders dated 20.11.2012, 11.1.2011 and 24.12.2014 respectively.
3. The service conditions of officers/employees of Legislative Council Secretariat are governed by the U.P. Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to at the ''Rules, 1976'') framed under Article 187(B) of the Constitution of India. The Rules, 1976 have been amended vide 4th Amendment Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules, 2019'') notified on 14.1.2020. One of the important and major changes in amended Rules is that the posts, which were earlier within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission, have been taken out from the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission, and the said posts have been brought within the purview of a selection committee to be constituted under the amended Rule-6 (i-D).
4. Vide Advertisement dated 17.9.2020 and supplementary advertisement dated 27.9.2020 Online applications were invited for holding recruitment for 99 vacancies of 11 cadres, including the posts of assistant review officer, review officer and additional private secretary.
5. The petitioners applied for 3 posts i.e. for the post of assistant review officer, review officer and additional private secretary. They were unsuccessful in the preliminary examination of the recruitment process.
6. In the present petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the entire process of selection pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01 of 2020 dated 17.7.2020 and Supplementary Advertisement dated 27.9.2020.
Further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue to work on their respective posts as per scheme of Government Order dated 22.5.1998.
7. In support of their prayers, the petitioners have made allegations of nepotism, favoritism, mala fide and violation of rules in the selection process. It is further alleged that earlier it was the U.P. Public Service Commission, which was making selection for the posts advertised, however, amendment in the Rules, 1976 were made, and in a collusive manner, selection has been entrusted to a private agency. It is further alleged that the paper was leaked on the day of the examination at Gorakhpur Center. Though the examination at Gorakhpur Center was cancelled, but it is alleged that in the present era of technology, where semiconductors and electronic revolution has taken place, in a big way, leakage of paper at one center amounts to leakage of paper at all centers.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the conjoint reading of Rules, 21, 22 and 23 of Rule-6 (i-D) would establish that the Rule-22(2) is in derogation of the scheme of Rule-21 of Rule 6(i-D). Now, it is the selection committee, which is empowered, to hold written-examination and/or interview.
9. It is important to note here that Rule-22 (2) provides that the Chairman may authorize any external agency to conduct the whole selection process or part thereof, therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that the entire selection from issuing advertisement to conducting written-examination and holdin
Sachin Kumar and others v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSB) and others
Public recruitment processes must ensure fairness and legality, with allegations of irregularities requiring substantial proof to warrant judicial intervention.
The selection process must be fair and transparent; systemic irregularities can invalidate the entire process, even if some candidates are innocent of wrongdoing.
A candidate cannot challenge a selection process after participating and being unsuccessful; such claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
Candidates participating in a recruitment process do not have a legal right to appointment if the selection process is found to be flawed and thus invalid.
Employment and Service matter - Grade-IV employees - Selection process - Selection process is not subject matter of challenge in absence of any grounds, subsequent action of issuing appointment order....
(1) Appointment – Normally, it is not for courts to interfere unless process smacks of mala fides – However, right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.