Allahabad High Court Directs CBI To Conduct Preliminary Probe Into Recruitment For UP Assembly Secretariat Staff

The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla ordered thus while hearing a special appeal as well as a writ petition filed before it challenging an earlier order which dismissed a writ filed by petitioners in April this year challenging the recruitment process.

At the outset, the bench expressed its concerns over the amendment of the U.P. Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1976 in the year 2019 in so far as ousted the examination agency i.e., UP Public Service Commission for recruiting staff of the two legislative bodies of the state.

The Court also questioned the opening of the scope for an external agency (to conduct the whole selection process) as per Rule 22 (2) when no such agency was known on the basis of any credible foundation.

Important, in its order, the Court called the decision to open a scope for an external agency, by bypassing the rule of the Selection Committee prescribed under Rule 6 (i-D), as “quite shocking”.

In its examination of the matter, the Court found that initially seven online and two offline agencies were empanelled by the State Government for holding recruitment examinations.

As per the Rules, the recruitment examination in the present case was to be conducted in the offline mode, therefore, the choice was restricted between the two agencies only and out of the two external agencies, since one was blacklisted, therefore, the matter as regards engagement of the sole external agency came to be placed before the Chairman, Vidhan Parishad as per rules.

The Court also noted that it was not taken through any correspondence of refusal with the U.P. Public Service Commission or 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, the Court said, leads us to doubt.

Further, on scrutiny of the company master data with respect to the agency chosen for recruitment, the Court came across some inexplicable details which, prima facie, satisfied the bench for a preliminary enquiry by an impartial agency as regards the identification of external agency in the present case.

In view of this, the Court proceeded to frame the following questions in Public Interest:

(1) Whether the U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj or U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow was contacted for carrying out the recruitment process and had refused to carryout such an obligation necessitating the engagement of an external agency?

(2) Whether there was any refusal by the Statutory Committee prescribed under the Rules to carryout the statutory obligation as per the Rules and the justification, if any?

(3) Whether the five external agencies had any credible record with the U.P. Public Service Commission or any such institution nominating them for consideration to be selected as an external agency and if not, the manner of shortlisting the same for consideration?

(4) Whether the experience certificate of the agency chosen by the Nodal Officer for the purpose of empanelment was scrutinized as per the norms prescribed and if not, as to whether an external agency for which the norms are not settled can be empanelled or selected for recruitment in the matter of public employment?

In its order, the Court stressed that fair competition in public employment is the foundational rule and to achieve this objective, the credibility of a recruitment agency is indispensable.

“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 procedure prescribed remains unquestionable,” the Court further remarked.

Lastly, the Court directed the office to register the case separately as suo motu P.I.L. under the following title: -

“Suo Motu in the matter of Recruitment of Staff in Vidhan Parishad Sabha and Vidhan Sabha, Secretariat, U.P.”

The court also appointed Senior Advocate Dr. LP Mishra as the amicus curiae in the case.

Case title - Sushil Kumar And 2 Others vs. Legislative Council U.P. Lko. Thru. Prin. Secy. And 11 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 336

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 336

Click Here To Read/Download Order