The case before the bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla deals with an appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the petitioners. Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Advocate represented the Petitioner in this case. The challenge is the process of recruitment of staff in the Secretariat of Vidhan Parishad.
The bench emphasizes that fair competition in public employment is a foundational rule, and the credibility of a recruitment agency is indispensable to achieving this objective. Government agencies and recruiters for public service must follow guidelines in the Indian Constitution’s Articles 14 and 16 for fairness. The courts can review their actions under Article 226 if they do not comply.
The High Court further stated that the hallmark of any fair selection is guaranteed provided the recruitment agency is publicly acceptable and the implementation of the procedure prescribed remains unquestionable. Constitutional bodies, like Vidhan Parishad, for recruitment of staff or officers, as is the case before us, are governed under Article 187 of the Constitution of India.
The bench opined that it was surprising to notice why the Rules of 1976 were amended by ousting the U.P. Public Service Commission in the year 2019 and why the scope for an external agency as per Rule 22 (2) of the above Rules was opened when no such agency was known based on any credible foundation. Fairness in the matter of identifying recruitment agencies was, however, guaranteed by prescribing a two-fold mechanism under Rule 22.
The High Court observed that a selection committee under Clause (i-D) of Rule 6 was recognized as the one mode, whereas, the alternative method via the Chairman, if required, was also authorized to conduct the whole selection process or part thereof through an external agency. It appears that the Chairman/Secretary/Nodal Officer of the Vidhan Parishad opted for external agency recruitment without any agency being either empanelled or ever identified for the purpose.
The High Court stated that since this Court is vested with the jurisdiction of P.I.L., the Court further proceeds to take suo motu notice in the public interest on the aforesaid questions for necessary directions, and the case is listed as suo motu P.I.L. in the matter of recruitment of Staff in Vidhan Parishad and Vidhan Sabha, Secretariat, U.P. Given the above, the bench referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for conducting a preliminary inquiry and submitting the report within six weeks.
The letter dated July 8, 2020, directed the Nodal Officer to identify the external recruitment agency. The bench understands that the agencies cannot be empanelled by the State/Public Service Commissions or other institutions that deal with public examinations for recruitment. The bench was not taken through any correspondence of refusal with the U.P. Public Service Commission, any other Subordinate Services Selection Commission, or any institution dealing with employment recruitment examinations before identification of the five private external agencies, whose consideration in an unnatural way leads the bench to doubt
Lastly, the bench emphasizes that the candidate cannot challenge the recruitment process at any stage of time, irrespective of the genuineness of the grievance, according to the Supreme Court.
Written by B. Krishna nikhitha of KL University Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh ( 5th semester )an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments