The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition said to maintain the public confidence in the recruitment process in the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council in respect of Class-III posts, the recruitment should be in the hands of the specialized statutory recruitment body, and not in the hands of a selection committee or a private agency.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Sushil Kumar and Ors.
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, who were appointed on contractual basis as per the scheme contained in the Government Order dated 22.05.1998 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Uttar Pradesh, providing that appointment to fill up vacancies in Legislative Council Secretariat arising in Class-III and Class-IV posts would be made on temporary/daily-wage-basis for a maximum period of six months at a time, and the said Government Order specifically mentioned that employees, appointed on temporary and daily wage-basis, shall not have any claim for regularization.
The petitioner nos 1, 2 and 3 were given contractual appointments on the post of assistant review officer vide orders dated 20.11.2012, 11.01.2011 and 24.12.2014 respectively.
The service conditions of officers/employees of Legislative Council Secretariat are governed by the U.P Legislative Council Secretariat Rules, 1976 framed under Article 187(B) of the Constitution of India. The Rules, 1976 have been amended vide 4th Amendment Rules, 2019 notified on 14.01.2020.
One of the important and major changes in amended Rules is that the posts, which were earlier within the purview of U.P Public Service Commission, have been taken out from the purview of the U.P Public Service Commission, and the said posts have been brought within the purview of a selection committee to be constituted under the amended Rule-6 (i-D).
Vide Advertisement dated 17.09.2020 and supplementary advertisement dated 27.09.2020 Online applications were invited for holding recruitment for 99 vacancies of 11 cadres, including the posts of assistant review officer, review officer and additional private secretary.
The petitioners applied for 3 posts i.e for the post of assistant review officer, review officer and additional private secretary. They were unsuccessful in the preliminary examination of the recruitment process.
In the petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the entire process of selection pursuant to the Advertisement No.01 of 2020 dated 17.07.2020 and Supplementary Advertisement dated 27.09.2020. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue to work on their respective posts as per scheme of Government Order dated 22.05.1998.
In support of their prayers, the petitioners have made allegations of nepotism, favoritism, mala fide and violation of rules in the selection process.
It is further alleged that earlier it was the U.P Public Service Commission, which was making selection for the posts advertised, however, amendments in the Rules, 1976 were made, and in a collusive manner, selection has been entrusted to a private agency.
It is further alleged that the paper was leaked on the day of the examination at Gorakhpur Center. Though the examination at Gorakhpur Center was cancelled, but it is alleged that in the present era of technology, where semiconductors and electronic revolution has taken place, in a big way, leakage of paper at one center amounts to leakage of paper at all centers.
Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the conjoint reading of Rules, 21, 22 and 23 of Rule-6 (i-D) would establish that the Rule-22(2) is in derogation of the scheme of Rule-21 of Rule 6(i-D). Now, it is the selection committee, which is empowered, to hold written-examination and/or interview.
It is important to note here that Rule-22 (2) provides that the Chairman may authorize any external agency to conduct the whole selection process or part thereof, therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that the entire selection from issuing advertisement to conducting written-examination and holding interview etc. is a job of selection committee referred to in Rule6(i-D) does not appear to be correct in view of the scheme of the Rules, the court said.
It has been submitted that in this case only the written-examination has been conducted, and no interview was conducted by the selection committee before declaring the result of final selection.
Under Rule-21 written-examination and/or interview is prescribed and, therefore, the written-examination is to be mandatorily followed by the interview, and in case the selection is to take place only on the basis of interview, there will be no requirement of written-examination. However, since the written examination was conducted, the interview should have been conducted.
It may be said that the petitioners have lost sight of the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Junior Level Posts (Discontinuation of Interview) Rules, 2017 whereby the interviews for appointment to the posts of Class-III and Class-IV posts have been discontinued, and the appointments are to be made only on the basis of written-examination.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that without disclosing the marks obtained and publication of names of the successful candidates, the online forms were called for the main-examination. The selection committee, however, relaxed the condition and uploaded the offline forms, which could have been downloaded, and filled at the time of main-examination. It is alleged that several candidates close to the present and the retired officers of Secretariat, were selected, and the candidates of personal choice of Principal Secretary of the Legislative Council Special Secretary, Legislative Council and Chairman, Legislative Council and its Members Secretary and other officers of the Legislative Council have been arrayed as respondents. It is alleged that the whole selection process was an eye-wash, and in violation of due process of law.
Shobhit Mohan Shukla, counsel for the petitioners, in view of the submissions, has prayed that the entire selection may be cancelled.
On the other hand, Gaurav Mehrotra, counsel for the respondents, has submitted that only after being declared unsuccessful in the preliminary-extermination, result whereof was declared on 11.12.2020, the petition was filed by the petitioners. The selection for different posts advertised had already been concluded, and most of the selected candidates had joined on their respective posts, and they have been confirmed. The petitioners had applied only against 3 posts, out of 99 vacancies of 11 cadres, and they cannot be allowed to assail the entire advertisement. The petitioners have not challenged the vires of the Rules, 2019, but they have sought relief in accordance with unamended Rules, 1976, and such a prayer is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The age relaxation of 2 years to the maximum age-limit was prescribed under the advertisement in addition to the age- relaxation available to the candidates of reserved category through reservation, and further, employees appointed on contractual/daily-wage-basis were given weightage of 2 marks in the preliminary-examination, and 5 marks in main-examination.
The petitioners, despite availing the age-relaxation and weightage of marks, could not become successful in the preliminary examination and, therefore, they did not feature in the list of candidates, who were called for the main-examination. The petitioners, who applied only against three posts, cannot be allowed to challenge the entire selection process, which has been free & fair.
The Court said to maintain the public confidence in the recruitment process in the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council in respect of Class-III posts, the recruitment should be in the hands of the specialized statutory recruitment body, and not in the hands of a selection committee or a private agency. Therefore, the Court directed that in future all Class-III posts in Assembly and Council are to be filled up by the selection made by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission. In this respect, necessary amendments in the recruitment rules are to be carried out within a period of three months.
“The petitioners, who have been given appointment on contractual basis, should be allowed to work on contractual basis and paid remuneration accordingly, subject to their performing duties of the posts, if the posts are vacant on which they have been working, till regularly selected candidates come from Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission and join the posts”, the order reads.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Court dismissed the petition, so far as the prayer made for quashing of the selection pursuant to the impugned advertisement is concerned.