Allahabad High Court
Smt. Salma Khatoon & Ors. vs Union Of India Thru. The Secy. ... on 14 December, 2015
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?AFR
Court No. - 4
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11411 of 2015
Petitioner :- Smt. Salma Khatoon & Ors.
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. The Secy. Ministry Of Woman & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aashish Srivastava,Amita Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,A.S.G.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the advertisement, the selection process and the corrigendum issued in respect of the procedure adopted including the constitution of the selection committee for selection and nomination of members of the Juvenile Justice Board.
At the very outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri H.P. Srivastava has pointed out that these selections are being carried out keeping in view the directives issued by the Supreme Court from time to time including the order passed on 24th July, 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 473 of 2005, Sampurna Behrua Vs. Union of India and others and the various directions issued by the High Court from time to time in various Public Interest Litigations. In such a situation, the petitioners who have already been interviewed and the results are yet to be declared, there is no occasion for this Court to entertain this petition for either quashing the advertisement or the constitution of the selection committee.
The grounds that have been taken are, firstly that the procedure prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Rules has been altered in the advertisement, namely, for the purpose of inviting applications certain more conditions have been prescribed.
As an illustration, the petitioners contends that the introduction of being compulsorily a domicile of the same district and also the declaration of relationship with the kith and kin of any other member of the Board is not provided for under the rules and, therefore, the petitioners urge that this introduction in the advertisement is incorrectly incorporated.
The ground taken for challenging the constitution of the selection committee primarily is that the earlier selection committee which was continuing, one Mr. Ravindra Chauhan who was at Serial No. 7, has been illegally eliminated and the Board being deficient in its constitution, the selections cannot be held to be valid.
It has further been submitted in the writ petition that fundamental rights are being violated, inasmuch as, such selections are not in accordance with public policy that was framed for the purpose of benefit of juveniles keeping in view the provisions of the Constitution of India as also the United Nations Charter issued from time to time.
It has further been submitted that the State Government has not been taking appropriate action even for release of honourarium and even allowing the petitioners to continue on their respective post as members till finalization of their tenure as envisaged under the rules.
We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the writ petition appears to have been framed only for the purpose of either continuing the petitioners or otherwise forestalling the process of a fresh selection. The petitioners have without objection to the advertisement have participated in the selections.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has informed the Court through the communication dated 11th December, 2015 that Sri Ravindra Chauhan was eliminated on account of his tenure having come to an end and not because of any order of removal. Secondly, the other member possessing the same qualification was already there on the Board, namely Dr. Jyoti Singh and was fulfilling the criteria for discharging the obligation that is cast upon such a member. Consequently, the constitution of the Board for the selections is in accordance with the rules and the directives issued from time to time.
We may now come to the issue raised with regard to an error in the advertisement which according to the petitioner has been deliberately included. To our mind, the said inclusions in the advertisement are in aid of an effective carrying out of the procedure, inasmuch as, the availability of a local person from within the district cannot be said to be an arbitrary condition nor is it in any way ultravires the provisions of rules or otherwise violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The second declaration with regard to the member being not related to any other member is equally correct, inasmuch as, to avoid any concentration of persons belonging to the same family to operate on the Juvenile Justice Board, such a qualification introduced in the advertisement does not in any way prejudice the rights of any lawful applicant, rather it eliminates the possibility of nepotism.
Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a newspaper clipping to contend that these selections have been made an agenda by the current ruling party in the 23rd July, 2015 newspaper report in Dainik Jagran and has been placed on record as Annexure 13.
Having considered the same, even though a newspaper report does not have any evidentiary value and which is a declaration by some member of the political party, we are definite that such declarations cannot in any way impede the selection process nor can this be a process adopted in order to foster the ideals of any political party or to make appointments of people belonging to any political organization.
Selections have to be made in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the rules itself and also according to the qualifications prescribed therein. If any selection is held in violation of rules or on account of any extraneous consideration the same is open to challenge before the appropriate forum as and when the occasion arises.
The selections are yet to be held and the final names have to be announced. In such a situation, the petitioners also having been interviewed do not have any independent cause of action at this stage so as to call upon us to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of those persons who may feel aggrieved by the final selections.
Order Date :- 14.12.2015
sahu
