E-Paper
UP Legislative Council recruitment process:SC stays high court order for CBI probe
A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol stayed the order of the high court passed on September 18 on a petition filed by the UP Legislative Council which alleged that the order was passed without hearing them, as the high court converted an appeal filed by a group of unsuccessful candidates into a suo moto petition and passed orders.
New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Friday stayed an order of the Allahabad high court ordering a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the staff recruitment process in the Uttar Pradesh over alleged nepotism and favouritism in the selection process.
A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol stayed the order of the high court passed on September 18 on a petition filed by the UP Legislative Council which alleged that the order was passed without hearing them, as the high court converted an appeal filed by a group of unsuccessful candidates into a suo moto petition and passed orders.
The bench issued notice on the appeal filed by the Council and sought response from the unsuccessful candidates, who were petitioners in the high court, within four weeks. Meantime, the court said, “The impugned order (of the high court) is stayed.”
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the UP Legislative Council told the court that the high court failed to realize that the petition at the behest of unsuccessful candidates was not maintainable. He pointed out that in 2019, an amendment was made in the UP Legislative Council Secretariat Service Rules, 1976 which gave power to the Chairperson of the Legislative Council to authorize any external agency to conduct an examination and hold recruitment for Grade 3 vacancies in the Council secretariat. Prior to this amendment, the state made recruitment through the UP Public Service Commission.
He further stated that these candidates took the examination, participated in the process and then turned around to challenge the recruitment after they failed to clear the test. Rohatgi further pointed out that a single bench of the high court refused to entertain their petition and later they appealed before a two-judge bench of the high court which converted it into a suo moto petition.
The top court asked the state, “How was the agency (which conducted the examination) selected?” Rohatgi told the court that this question was not open to be raised by the candidates who participated in the exam and challenged it after being unsuccessful.
The petitioners before the high court were also represented in court by their lawyers who requested for a report to be called from the CBI to ascertain the progress of investigation.
The HC in its order said, “The state or any recruitment agency for making employment in public service, therefore, is not only required to have utmost credibility in the functioning of recruitment body but the procedure thereof must also stand the test of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 16 (right against discrimination), failing which it shall be amenable to judicial scrutiny within the ambit of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The appeal filed by the Legislative Council through advocate Ruchira Goel pointed out that law had clearly been settled by past decisions of the Supreme Court that CBI probe was to be ordered in exceptional circumstances. The appeal questioned the findings in the HC order of nepotism, favouritism, fraud in the selection process and the manner by which the external agency was selected, without giving time to the Legislative Council to file its response.
The UP Legislative Council further submitted that the issues on which the matter was referred to the CBI were never raised in the petition or the appeal filed by the unsuccessful candidates. Even the 2019 amendment to the recruitment rules was not under challenge before the high court, the appeal stated.
One of the grounds for the high court to order CBI probe was the exclusion of UP Subordinate Selection Board (UPSSB) and the UP Public Services Commission (UPPSC) from the recruitment process. The council told the top court that the UPSSB was not empowered to conduct selection to the secretariat of either House of Legislature. As regards the UPPSC, the Council pointed out that the commission had given a no objection certificate before introducing the 2019 amendment.
