Supreme Court Stays HC Order For CBI Probe Into Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Staff Recruitment Process
The Supreme Court on Friday (13th Oct) stayed the division bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the recruitment process of the staff of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council.A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol passed the interim order while issuing notice in...
The Supreme Court on Friday (13th Oct) stayed the division bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the recruitment process of the staff of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol passed the interim order while issuing notice in the special leave petitions filed by the UP Legislative Council against the judgment delivered by the High Court on September 23.
The matter stemmed from an amendment to the U.P. Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1976, in 2019, which removed the UP Public Service Commission from the recruitment process. In the present case, there was a challenge to the process of recruitment of staff in the Secretariat of Vidhan Parishad.
The Single-judge bench of the HC had dismissed the case but when it went into appeal before the division bench of the Allahabad High Court, it expressed doubts about the fairness of the recruitment process for the staff of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council. The High Court subsequently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary investigation into the matter.
It observed “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 therefor must also stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India failing which it shall be amenable to the judicial scrutiny within the ambit of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The hallmark of any fair selection stands guaranteed provided the recruitment agency is publicly acceptable and the implementation of the procedure prescribed remains unquestionable.”
Aggrieved by the same, the present SLP was filed by the UP Legislative Council before the Supreme Court.
Arguments before the Supreme Court
At the outset, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh argued that under the rules framed under Article 187 of the Constitution, provisions were made for filling various posts in the Legislative Council, including those of stenographers.
He brought to the court’s attention an amendment that took place in one portion of these rules in 2019. He submitted that instead of the traditional route through the Public Service Commission (PSC), the Council had been granted the authority to fill posts through a selection committee. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Council could opt to use an external agency for this purpose.
He contended that certain individuals had participated in competitive exams, and initially, they were content with the process. When they were not successful, they decided to challenge the examination's validity.
He stated “Certain persons took the competitive exam, writ petitioners took the exam, they were happy with it. They were unsuccessful, and after being unsuccessful they challenged the exam.”
He explained that the case went before a single judge of the High Court, where they were unsuccessful. Subsequently, they filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).
Thereafter, he submitted “Then they filed LPA- without entertaining show cause, the HC converted an LPA of into a PIL. There is no criminality here, it’s a house of council. It can be a right exam or a wrong exam. “
At this stage, Justice Hrishikesh Roy inquired about the norms that were applicable at the time of the recruitment process.
Rohatgi clarified that the 2019 amendment to the UP Legislative Council Secretariat Services allowed the Chairman to authorize external agencies to conduct examinations.
J. Hrishikesh Roy further asked, “How was the agency selected?”
Sr Adv Rohatgi replied “Is this question open after you are unsuccessful and then turn around and challenge the examination? The HC only asked for record.”
Additionally, Advocate Anmol Chandan, representing the respondent, informed the court that a CBI inquiry was already underway and was expected to conclude in the coming days. He requested the Supreme Court to issue notice to the CBI and direct them to provide a report on the inquiry.
In the order, the bench observed :
“These 2 SLPs filed by Legislative Council of UP raise a grievance in connection with order 18.9.2023 of division bench of the High Court where under the Judge has ordered the CBI to make a preliminary inquiry on the process of recruitment undertaken by UP Legislative council. The Petitioner argues that the writ petitioners at whose instance the above direction was issued were unsuccessful and therefore they cannot turn around and challenge the process of selection. It is then pointed out that following the 2019 amendment to the UP Legislative Council Secretariat Services Rules, the chairman is competent to authorize any external agency to conduct the exam process and this was the mode used for Grade 3 vacancies. The High Court also issued directions for converting LPA(Letters Patent Appeal) into PIL on a suo moto basis and this too is questioned by the petitioner. Issue notice in 4 weeks. The impugned order are stayed”
Case title: Legislative Council, UP v. Sushil Kumar
Citation: SLP(C) No. 22746/2023
For petitioner- Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi along with AOR Ruchira Goel.
For respondent-Advocate Anmol Chandan.