Ravi Jindal vs. Union Public Service Commissio

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C).No.10670/2006

RAVIJINDAL

PETITIONER

Through: Mr.S.D.Singh with Mr.Vijay Kumar and Mr.Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocates.

Versus

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

Through: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

%

${{!}}$

ORDER 05.10.2006

• 1. The petitioner has prayed for production of his answer books in order to carry out inspection of the same by the petitioner and to strike down the process of evaluation for the purpose and process of scaling applied against the petitioner qua successful candidates and for re-evaluation of his answer book in the subjects of Psychology I and II for the Civil Service Examination, 2005 and to declare the petitioner as a successful candidate.
• 2. The petitioner had appeared for Civil Service Examination, 2005 under Roll No.019155. The petitioner qualified the preliminary examination and was admitted to Civil Service main examination. However, after he was called for personality test the petitioner was finally not selected despite his expectation of a good rank. The grievance of the petitioner is that he obtained very low marks contrary to his expectations and he Signature Not Verified

  Digitally Signed Thorse scored higher marks in the last examination in the same subject. The petitioner certify that the digital read physical file.

made several representations to the respondent to show his answer books and re-

evaluate the same and inform the petitioner the method of evaluation and process of scaling/moderation, however, nothing has been done. The petitioner also relied on Human/Mechanical error in transferring marks from the answer book to the tabulation sheet in case of Mr.Brijees Sher Arzoo who is alleged to have been shown as absent in Urdu Literature I & II and subsequently shown to have scored 176 out of 300 and 190 out of 300 marks respectively. The petitioner also relied on the additional affidavit given by the respondent, UPSC, in W.P(C) No.1271/2006 allegedly admitting the high subjectivity of marks due to complete discretion of the interview board.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the High Court had jurisdiction and relied on 108(2003) Delhi Law Times, 116, Smt.Meena Vs. Union of India where the policy of wait listing of the persons seeking appointment on compassionate ground was challenged. A learned Single Judge had held that the change of policy of wait listing was without any justification and directions were given to frame policy keeping in view certain factors.

ر اوردا

• 4. It was however, also observed that as the petitioner was not a Government servant as he has not been given employment, therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to entertain any application of the petitioner and the actual course and remedy with the petitioner in that case was to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
• 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner must approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended

that Article 323A of the Constitution of India contemplated formation of administrative tribunals with respect to recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to the public service and post in connection with the affairs of the Union and consequently the Central Administrative Tribunal under the powers of said Article dealt only with the service conditions of the persons who have already been appointed to the public service and post and not to the matters of the persons who have not been appointed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the definition of "appointment" as given in Oxford English Reference Dictionary, Second Edition, Revised which is as under:-

$

"Appointment: 1.an arrangement to meet at a specific time and place; 2)a) a post or office available for applicants, or recently filled (took up the appointment on Monday); b) a person appointed; c) the act or an instance of appointing esp. to a post; 3) a) furniture fittings; b) equipment."

7. The reliance has also been placed on the definitions of words "recruit" and "select" in Oxford English Reference Dictionary, Second edition, revised which are as under:-

"Recruit:-1) a serviceman or servicewoman newly enlisted and not yet fully trained; 2) a new member of a society or organization; 3) a beginner. 1) enlist a person as a recruit; 2) form (an army etc) by enlisting recruits; 3) get or seek recruits; 4) replenish or reinvigorate (numbers, strength etc)."

Select:- Choose, esp. as the best or most suitable. 1) chosen for excellence or suitability; choice; 2) (of a society etc) exclusive, cautious in admitting members, select committee."

8. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in 1988(2) SLR, 689, Sudhanshu Tripathi Vs. Union of India and another, however, had held that examination is a part of the process of recruitment and consequently the High Court has no jurisdiction to

entertain writ petition in this regard and only Administrative Tribunals have jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief. Relying on the meaning of the word "recruitment" as specified in the shorter Oxford dictionary, Vol.II, "a recruitment; the act or process of recruiting", it was held that the Parliament deliberately used the words "recruitment" and "matters concerning recruitment" in Section 14 and 28 of the Act so as to indicate that the Tribunal shall have exclusive discretion to deal with these matters. The Division Bench was of the view that in clause (1) of Article 323-A, the relevant words used are "Recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to Public Service and post" and, therefore, it is obvious that the words "recruitment" and "conditions of service of persons appointed" have been used to indicate different meanings and purposes.

3

9. A Division Bench of Orissa High Court also in the matter of Pratap Chandra Rout and others Vs. State of Orissa and others, 1987 Labour Industrial Cases, 104 had held that the entire exercise for establishment of Administrative Tribunals by amending the Constitution was to take away the cases relating to service from the jurisdiction of the High Courts and put them within the ambit of a separate forum. The plea that Central Administrative Tribunal will have jurisdiction only if a person is appointed in the service and not before that was not accepted on the ground that the words "appointment" and "recruitment" are not synonymous. It was held that the word "recruitment" cannot suggest that it must be understood in relation to a complete appointment and not to a stage where the appointment is still under consideration. It was held that it is only after the culmination of process of recruitment that an appointment takes place and therefore, recruitment and appointment are two separate stages, quite distinct from each other and the word "appointment" would relate only to

conditions of service and not to the word "recruitment" which is a stage prior to getting into service.

10. A single Judge of this Court in the matter of Pranay Kumar Sen Vs. the Chairman, UPSC and others in CWP No.5259 of 2002 relying on Sudhanshu Tripathi Vs. Union of India and Another, 1988 (2) SLR 688; Pratap Chander Rout and others Vs. State of Orissa and others, 1987 LIC 104 and K. Nagaraja and others Vs. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department and Others, AIR 1987 Andhra Pradesh 230 had held that the competitive examination is a condition precedent for appointment to an All-India Service and such an examination, therefore, is a part of process of recruitment. Perusal of the definition of service matter, it is apparent that it is very wide and it is not to be considered narrowly to limit its meaning strictly to the condition of service. Consequently, service matters would include not only the conditions of service but also other incidental and ancillary matters and, therefore, the process of selection for service would be governed by the word 'service matters'.

1

• 11. The following extract of the above noted judgment Pranay Kumar Sen (supra) is relevant:-
  • "6. Taking pleas from the word used under Article 323 (a) of Constitution for trial, deliberately used the word recruitment and matters concerning in Section 14 and 28 of the Acts so as to indicate that the Tribunal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with these matters and that the High Court in view of the specific provisions contained in section 28, shall not have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon the petition in which questions relating to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment are raised."
  • 12. No cogent grounds have been raised by the petitioners to differ with the ratio of above noted judgments. Therefore, there are no grounds to hold that the

Central Administrative Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the disputes raised by the petitioner. Consequently the Central Administrative Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide the controversies raised by petitioners regarding reevaluation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, there is no ground to interfere and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is dismissed.

October 5^th, 2006

'k'

ANIL KUMAR