"Selection To IAS Can't Be A Whimsical Process": Delhi High Court Pulls Up UPSC For Cancelling Interviews By Selection Committee
Delhi High Court has agreed to hear on merits the plea challenging the letter issued by the Union Public Service Commission on December 31, 2019, whereby the interviews scheduled to be conducted by the Selection Committee were cancelled."Selection to the civil services, especially the IAS – a coveted service, cannot be a whimsical process. It has to follow certain norms, procedures...
Delhi High Court has agreed to hear on merits the plea challenging the letter issued by the Union Public Service Commission on December 31, 2019, whereby the interviews scheduled to be conducted by the Selection Committee were cancelled.
"Selection to the civil services, especially the IAS – a coveted service, cannot be a whimsical process. It has to follow certain norms, procedures and discipline. When the State or any instrumentality thereof fails to follow the said discipline, it can lead to misgovernance and misuse by vested interests. The cancellation of interviews as in the present case is not to be viewed solitarily as a one-off incident. It represents a deeper malaise in selection, which ought to be conducted fairly and in a transparent manner. When the Court finds that the selection mechanism is being impeded, successively, it cannot turn a blind eye. Such a case would require interference by the exercise of writ jurisdiction in order to examine as to whether the prescribed norms for selection were adhered to, and if not, then, to consider the remedial measures. The circumstances in the present case accordingly warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the present writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India"
While holding the present petition to be maintainable, the Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that when the court finds that the selection mechanism is being impeded, successively, it cannot turn a blind eye.
Such a case, the court held, would require interference by the exercise of writ jurisdiction in order to examine as to whether the prescribed norms for selection were adhered to, and if not, then, to consider the remedial measures.
The order has come in a civil miscellaneous application challenging the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the Petitioners are the Non-State Civil Service Officers and belong to the Rajasthan cadre. Therefore, the appropriate authority to hear the present petition should be Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur.
Submissions Made By The Petitioners
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, who appeared for the Petitioners, submitted that UPSC had initially fixed the date for interviews on 31st December 2019, however, looking at the number of candidates, it had extended the said date for interviews to 1st January 2020.
According to him, the candidates reached the UPSC on 31st December 2019, however, to their utter shock and surprise they were told that the Selection Committee had not convened, as two members, who were to be appointed by the Government of India, were not appointed.
While conceding that a remedy does lie before CAT, Mr Patwalia argued that the power of this court under Article 226 is plenary in nature and existence of the alternate remedy does not take away the jurisdiction of this Court from dealing with the issue.
Court's Observations
On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the court observed that due to hearings and transmission of records being virtual in any case, because of the pandemic, this court does not feel compelled to reject this writ petition on the ground of forum non-conveniens.
While note that the meeting of the Selection Committee was cancelled due to the Union of India not sending its two nominees to the Selection Committee, the court highlighted that merely having an alternate remedy is not enough, that remedy should also be efficacious. The court said:
'During the pandemic, almost all the Courts and Tribunals are functioning at a very bare minimum. Relegating the Petitioners to approach CAT would lead to further delays in their candidature being considered for selection to the IAS. Though the CAT may be functioning during the pandemic, there is no doubt that the same is through video conferencing, at a bare minimum level. Under such circumstances, to reject the prayer of the Petitioners would cause substantial injustice as the Petitioners may be left completely into an uncertain arena, insofar as the selection is concerned. The cancellation of the meeting of the Selection Committee deserves to be examined in writ jurisdiction.'
Therefore, the court has held the petition to be maintainable and will now take up the matter for arguments on November 27.
Case Title: Shri Akul Bhargava v. UPSC
[Read Order]