Legal Battle Unfolds as UP Legislative Council Challenges High Court Order

Legal Battle Unfolds as UP Legislative Council Challenges High Court Order

VoM News Desk | October 13, 2023 | 11:19 PM IST | Courts & Law | Follow on Google News

Legal Battle Unfolds as UP Legislative Council Challenges High Court Order

Legal Battle Unfolds as UP Legislative Council Challenges High Court Order

A significant legal dispute has emerged as the Supreme Court’s bench, consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, issues a stay on the high court’s order from September 18. The stay comes in response to an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh (UP) legislative council, which argued that the high court had improperly converted an appeal initiated by a group of unsuccessful candidates into a suo moto petition and issued orders without granting the council an opportunity to present its case.

Controversy Over “Unmaintainable” Petition

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the UP legislative council, expressed that the high court failed to recognize the non-maintainability of the petition initiated by the unsuccessful candidates. He highlighted a crucial 2019 amendment to the UP Legislative Council Secretariat Service Rules, 1976, which granted the council’s chairperson the authority to authorize an external agency to conduct examinations and oversee recruitment for Grade 3 vacancies within the council secretariat. Prior to this amendment, the state’s recruitment was carried out through the UP public service commission.

Rohatgi further elaborated that the candidates had willingly participated in the examination process and only contested the recruitment process after their inability to pass the test. Initially, a single bench of the high court declined to entertain their petition, and subsequently, they appealed before a two-judge bench of the high court, which later converted it into a suo moto petition.

Key Questions Raised by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court inquired about the process by which the agency responsible for conducting the examination was selected. Rohatgi argued that this question should not be raised by the candidates who voluntarily participated in the examination and subsequently challenged it following their unsuccessful results.

CBI Probe and Controversy

The petitioners who approached the high court were also represented by their lawyers, who requested a report from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to assess the progress of the investigation. The appeal filed by the legislative council, through advocate Ruchira Goel, invoked Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that CBI probes should only be ordered under exceptional circumstances. The appeal questioned the high court’s findings of nepotism, favoritism, and fraud in the selection process, as well as the process by which the external agency was chosen.

The UP legislative council argued that the issues leading to the CBI referral were not raised in the original petition or the appeal submitted by the unsuccessful candidates. Furthermore, the appeal contended that the 2019 amendment to the recruitment rules had not been challenged before the high court.

Exclusion of Key Bodies and No Objection Certificate

One of the contentious points in the high court’s order was the exclusion of the UP subordinate selection board (UPSSB) and the UP public services commission (UPPSC) from the recruitment process. The legislative council explained that the UPSSB was not authorized to conduct selections for the legislative council and assembly secretariat. Additionally, it was noted that the UP’s public service recruitment body had provided a “no objection certificate” before the 2019 amendment was enacted.

This legal battle raises significant questions about the jurisdiction of the high court, the role of external agencies in recruitment, and the circumstances under which a CBI probe can be initiated.

VoM News Desk

VoM News is an online web portal in jammu Kashmir offers regional, National & global news.