Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/27/2021 on 15 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
15TH MARCH, 2023
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 27 OF 2021
Between:
Sanjiv Chaturvedi. ...Petitioner
and
Union of India and others. ...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, petitioner,
party-in-person.
Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 : Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, the learned
& 4. Standing Counsel for the Union of
India.
Counsel for respondent no. 2. : Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, the learned Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Counsel for respondent no. 3. : Mr. Lalit Sharma, the learned counsel
for the CBI.
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The petitioner has preferred the present Writ
Petition to seek the following reliefs :-
"a. To issue appropriate writ/ directions/ order,
setting aside order No 24011/02/2018-Estt (B)
dated 15.09.2020 and order No A-
19014/01/2020-E-I dated 05.10.2020 issued by
Respondent No. 1, regarding selection of
Respondent No. 5 to the post of Member, Staff
Selection Commission. (enclosed as Annexure
A-9 (Colly) passed by respondent no.5)
b. To issue appropriate writ/ order/ directions to
Respondent No. 1 for conducting afresh exercise
for recruitment to the post of Member, Staff
Selection Commission, from 16 candidates,
(who had applied for the said post in response
to advertisement dated 21.01.2020), purely on
grounds of merit only and in fair, transparent
and impartial manner.
c. To issue appropriate writ/ order/ directions to
Respondent No. 3 to conduct fair, transparent
and impartial investigation into forgery,
conspiracy and other criminal offences
perpetrated into the said recruitment."
2. The petitioner has impleaded the following
respondents in the Writ Petition :-
"1. Union of India through
The Secretary, Department of Personnel &
Training, North Block, New Delhi- 110001
2. State of Uttarakhand through
The Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand,
Civil Secretariat, Subhash Marg,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand - 258001
3. Central Bureau of Investigation through
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Plot No. 5-B CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
4. Department of Post through
Director GPO, New Delhi
New Delhi GPO, New Delhi-110001
5. Sh. Ashok Kumar,
Member, Staff Selection Commission,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi- 11003."
3. The gravamen of the petitioner in the present
Writ Petition, is that, in respect to an advertisement
issued by the UPSC, inviting applications from eligible
government servants to fill up the post of Member, Staff
Selection Commission, New Delhi (Joint Secretary Level)
in Level 14 in the pay Matrix of Rs. 144200-218200, on
deputation basis, the petitioner had sent his application,
through the departmental channel, well in time. It is the
2
case of the petitioner that, even though he was fully
qualified, he was not called to participate in the selection
process, and others, who were not qualified, and did not
meet the eligibility conditions, were allowed to
participate in the selection process. Even the person,
who was ultimately selected - i.e. respondent no. 5, was
selected with relaxation of Rules. The petitioner alleges
that the respondents have falsely claimed that the
petitioner's application was not received before the due
date. According to the petitioner, there is forgery and
fabrication committed by the respondents to justify
ignoring the petitioner's application for the aforesaid
post.
4. It is in the aforesaid light that the petitioner
has sought the reliefs, as set out hereinabove.
5. The primary reliefs sought by the petitioner, in
prayers 'a' and 'b', squarely fall within the jurisdiction of
the Central Administrative Tribunal to consider. So far
as the third relief is concerned, i.e. to seek a direction to
the CBI to conduct an impartial and independent enquiry
into the alleged forgery and fabrication of records by the
other respondents, we are of the view that the petitioner
has adequate remedy of preferring a complaint before
3
the jurisdictional Police Station for registration of a First
Information Report, if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
Even if the First Information Report is not registered, the
petitioner has sufficient remedy of invoking the
jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., or even filing a criminal complaint under
Section 200 Cr.PC.
6. When we enquired from the petitioner, as to
whether he has lodged any complaint, in respect of the
alleged forgery and fabrication of records, the petitioner
states that he has not taken any such steps, as it is
unlikely that his complaint would be actioned, in the
light of the fact that the same would be directed against
senior government officials.
7. We are not satisfied with this explanation of
the petitioner. It is well settled that the High Court
cannot, at the drop of a hat, order investigation by the
CBI, merely because there are allegations of forgery and
fabrication made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition.
8. In the light of the aforesaid, considering the
fact that the Writ Petition has been pending before this
Court since January, 2021, and pleadings have been
exchanged, we are inclined to transfer the present Writ
4
Petition to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit
Bench at Nainital, along with the complete records. The
same shall be registered as an Original Application by
the Tribunal, and be dealt with in accordance with law.
9. So far as the third relief is concerned, we are
not inclined to grant the same in the light of the
aforesaid observations.
10. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the
light of the aforesaid observations.
11. Consequently, pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 15th March, 2023
Rahul
