Allahabad High Court
Union Of India Through The ... vs Central Administrative Tribunal ... on 17 February, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2328 of 2020
Petitioner :- Union Of India Through The Secretary,Department Of Personnel And Training And 3 Others
Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Allahbad Bench And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Vidyarthi,Gyan Prakash(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad. It was on the original application preferred by the non-petitioner to challenge the order dated 09.05.2014, cancelling the candidature of the non-petitioner in Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012.
2. It is a case where applications were invited for Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012. The non-petitioner along with others appeared in the selection and were declared successful in the test held in the month of November, 2012. The non-petitioner was then called for interview and final result thereupon was declared on 08.02.2013. The Staff Selection Commission however revised the result on 30.05.2013, showing the name of many candidates to be in 'withheld list'. Name of non-petitioner was not initially shown therein but subsequently his name was also included in the list of the candidates for 'withheld list'.
3. The non-petitioner was served with the show-cause notice containing certain allegations. It was basically of mass copying/ cheating in the selection test. The order was then passed adverse to the non-petitioner. It was challenged by maintaining an original application in the year 2017 with an application for condonation of delay. Delay in filing the original application was condoned by the learned Tribunal by passing a separate order. It has not been assailed by the petitioner herein, thus, the order dated 09.05.2018, condoning the delay attained finality.
4. Learned Tribunal allowed the original application preferred by the non-petitioner taking note of the fact that the original application involving same controversy was allowed earlier by the Allahabad Bench followed by Principal Bench at New Delhi. It was taking note that no material could be produced to show a case of mass cheating. The judgment of Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi was challenged by maintaining a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of Delhi High Court, SLP was preferred by the Union of India before the Apex Court. Initially, interim order was passed but later on the SLP was dismissed. In the light of the aforesaid, petitioners herein were expected to deal with all the similarly placed candidates by giving same treatment but since individual orders were passed, the non-petitioner also preferred original application. It has been allowed taking note of the facts referred above.
6. The petitioners herein have filed a supplementary affidavit to support their action. It is stated that they have drawn category by extent of benefit pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman and another vs. Sudesh Kumari, passed in Special Appeal Nos. 2836-2838 of 2017, decided vide judgment dated 19.07.2017. The following criteria were laid down for consideration of each case which are as follows:
"(a). Who had filed Court case before the date of dismissal of SLP in the Apex Court in the matter of Ms. Sudesh Kumari i.e. 19/07/2017 and the same was disposed of in their favour,
(b). Who had filed court cases and had judgments in their favour before 19/07/2017 (which was not implemented by the Commission at that time) and are filing fresh OAs/ MA after 19/07/2017 for revival of their cases,
(c). Cases which have been adjourned by courts in view of pendency of SLP in Apex Court,
(d). Cases in which the Commission has filed averments in the court that action will be taken as per verdict in Ms. Sudesh Kumari case."
7. It is submitted that the case of the non-petitioner does not fall in any of the criteria fixed by the Union of India thus, he is not entitled for the benefit, as granted by the Tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner on the other hand submits that the criteria fixed by respondents was again considered by Delhi High Court. The decision taken by the Union of India was not accepted.
9. In view of above, the issue is not open for debate further rather even the criteria laid down by the respondents are in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court where the appeal preferred by the Union of India was dismissed.
10. The relevant paras 8 and 9 of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Food Corporation of India vs. Amit Chhikara and others, passed in LPA No. 90 of 2019, decided vide judgment dated 08.02.2019, are quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
"8. Thereafter on 13th August 2018, the SSC passed an order, paras 4 and 7 of which are relevant and read thus:
"4. Whereas subsequent to the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ms. Sudesh Kumari, the Commission decided to declare the withheld result of such candidates affected by Post Examination Analysis in FCI Examination, 2012 and other examinations conducted by the Commission:-
(a) Who had filed Court case before the date of dismissal of SLP in the Apex Court in the matter of Ms. Sudesh Kumari i.e. 19.07.2017 and the same was disposed of in their favour.
(b) Who had filed court cases and had judgments in their favour before 19/07/2017 (which was not implemented by the Commission at that time) and are filing fresh OAs/ MA after 19.07.2017 for revival of their cases,
(c) Cases which have been adjourned by courts in view of pendency of SLP in Apex Court; and
(d) Cases in which the Commission has filed averments in the court that action will be taken as per verdict in Ms. Sudesh Kumari case.
Whereas the Petitioner did not fall under any of the aforesaid four categories."
.......
7. And whereas, in the instant case, the OA No. 2430/2013 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the CAT, PB, New Delhi on 15.12.2014 for want of jurisdiction and the petitioner filed the Writ Petition on 04.12.2017, i.e. after a gap of 5 years from the Examination and only after the dismissal of the SLP in the matter of Ms. Sudesh Kumari on 19.07.2017. Therefore, his case has not been considered by the Commission for declaration of his withheld result."
9. As a result, for the second time, the Respondent had to approach this Court with W.P. (C) 10518 of 2018 in which the impugned order came to be passed. The learned Single Judge, observed, and in view of this court rightly, as under:
"13. To my mind, the impugned order may border on contempt, especially in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Baradakanta Mishra, Ex-Commissioner of Endowments v. Bhimsen Dixit (1973) 1 SCC 446. It is incomprehensible, how, in the face of so many decisions of the Tribunal, this Court and the Supreme Court, (the Staff Selection Commission could arrogate, to itself, the authority to decide how to implement judicial orders passed by the Tribunal, this Court, and the Supreme Court, and limit the implementation thereof to four categories of cases to which, alone, the benefit of the said judgments would be extended by it, which have been carved out by the SSC, on no discernible basis whatsoever."
11. In view of the facts given above, we don't find any reason to cause interference the judgment of learned Central Administrative Tribunal rather after the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Kumari (supra), the respondents should be given same treatment to the similarly placed, litigating unnecessarily.
12. The petitioners are now expected to comply the judgment of Tribunal at the earliest as the issue raised herein has otherwise been settled by Supreme Court in regard to the same selection of 2012.
13. It is more so when in the instant case, application for condonation of delay was allowed and order therein has attained finality.
14. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.2.2021/ V.S.Singh
