Delhi High Court
Manish Kumar & Ors. vs Union Public Service Commission & ... on 19 January, 2022
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 1178/2022
MANISH KUMAR & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through Mr A K Behera Sr. Advocate with Mr
A P Singh Adv.
versus
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.....Respondents
Through Mr Naresh Kaushik, Adv. for R-1.
Ms Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with
Ms Soumya Singh, Adv. for R-2
& 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-
CM APPL. 3399/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1178/2022
CM APPL. 3400/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioners for
taking on record additional documents]
CM APPL. 3401/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioners for
ad-interim ex-parte stay]
2. We have heard Mr AK Behera, learned senior counsel, who appears
for the petitioners, Mr Naresh Kaushik, who appears for respondent
no.1/Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), and Ms Suparna Srivastava
who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2/Ministry of External Affairs
(MEA) & 3/ Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
02:04:29
3. What has emerged during the course of the hearing is that the
document, which is appended on page 32 of the case file and marked as
Annexure P-2, was not made available to the Central Administrative
Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"], when the impugned order dated
22.04.2021 was passed. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal in
O.A. No.876/2021.
3.1. The aforesaid document, in fact, etches out the controversy in the
matter. The controversy etched out in the document which, according to the
parties is the heart of the matter, is set forth in paragraph 2 of the said
document. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereinafter:
"2. Estt.(RR) Section has referred the above file to CS.l Division,
wherein the MEA has sought clarification on the following point in
connection with the LDCE 2015:
"whether in case of a Direct Recruit ASO of 2010 batch
having four years of approved service as on the crucial date
i.e. lst July 2015, the requisite period of 5 years is to be
counted from the date of Tier I examination which also
counted towards preparation of final merit list or that of Tier-
2 Examination.""
(emphasis is ours)
3.2. The aforesaid issue has been analysed by C.S.I.(A) Division of the
DoPT, in the aforementioned document. The analysis has narrowed down to
the following, as recorded in paragraph 6.3 of the very same document. For
the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter:
"6.3 ln this regard, the relevant quote "Keeping in view the fact
that the preliminary examination is only a qualifying examination/
screening test to eliminate the less meritorious candidates......." in
the above said O.M. of DoPT appears to be not matching the
present criteria (2010 onwards) of CGL Examination scheme and
needs suitable modification. As such, a policy decision is required
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
02:04:29
to be taken on whether the requisite period of 5 years, for
appearing in the SO LDCE, be counted from the date of Tier-l
examination of CGLE (which is no longer a qualifying paper)."
(emphasis is ours)
3.3. Mr Behera says that the aforesaid document was made available to the
petitioners only after they had taken recourse to the Right to Information
(RTI) route. Mr Behera emphasises that this document was not available
with the petitioners before, and, therefore, has now been placed before this
Court.
4. Given this position, counsels for the parties are agreed that the matter
requires consideration by the Tribunal.
4.1. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioners to file a review petition before the Tribunal.
4.2. The review petition will be filed by the petitioners at the earliest,
though not later than four weeks from today.
4.3. Once the review petition is filed, the same will be dealt with on merits
by the Tribunal.
5. Both Ms Srivastava and Mr Kaushik say that, if a review petition is
preferred by the petitioners, they will not oppose the same on the ground of
limitation, in view of the fact that a final decision seems to have not been
taken in the matter.
5.1 We may add that, besides this, it has to be borne in mind that the case
set by the petitioners is that the said document was not within their
knowledge and possession. That said, as to what impact it would have, is a
matter which the Tribunal may have to consider, albeit, as per law.
5.2. It is ordered accordingly.
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
02:04:29
6. Consequently, pending applications shall also stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
JANUARY 19, 2022/rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:24.01.2022
02:04:29
