J&K Public Service Commission Being A Constitutional Body Has No Locus To File A Writ Petition In Selection Related Matters: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
The Court noted that the person whose selection and appointment were set aside had not challenged the decision of the CAT, and the J&K PSC did not have locus standi to file a writ against his non-selection.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission(J&K PSC) being a constitutional body, could not file a writ petition in a decision related to selection.
The Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Rahul Bharti observed, “By reference to the averments as made in the writ petition sounding as if Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir was the writ petitioner, we had come to observe that there was no elementary level pleading as to the locus-standi of the petitioner – J&K PSC in assailing the said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT Jammu Bench, Jammu which was not affecting or meaning to affect any legal/statutory/constitutional right and status of the petitioner - J&K PSC or for that matter involving no interpretation of any rule/regulation governing the working and functioning of the petitioner – J&K PSC in carrying out the selection process which resulted in the challenged selection of Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir.”
The Court added, “Even in the review petition, by reference to purported communication No.PSC/LIT/153/2018/P-1 dated 15.02.2022 addressed by the Assistant Law Officer of the petitioner – J&K PSC to Sh. F. A. Natnoo, Standing Counsel for the petitioner-J&K PSC, there is no mention therein as to vide which minutes of meeting the so referred approval of the competent authority for filing the writ petition against judgment dated 03.02.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT, Jammu Bench, Jammu was taken. Said communication No. PSC/LIT/153/2018/P-1 dated 15.02.2022 by the Assistant Law Officer of the petitioner- J&K PSC to the Standing Counsel for the petitioner – J&K PSC could not be and cannot be taken by a constitutional court to be bearing the decision of a constitutional body to file a writ petition against an adjudication made in a selection related matter.”
The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate F. A. Natnoo.
Brief Facts
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench (CAT), by its judgment, set aside the selection of the Proforma Respondent No.5 and had directed the PSC as well as the State to consider the candidature of Respondent No.1 herein for the position of Lecturer, Super Specialty (Medical Oncology), Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Jammu.
The Proforma Respondent No. 5, whose selection was negated by the impugned judgment chose not to challenge it. However, the J&K PSC filed a writ before the High Court seeking quashing of the impugned judgment. The said writ was heard and dismissed due to lack of locus standi of the J&K PSC to challenge the impugned judgment. While dismissing the petition, the Court held that the person whose selection and appointment had been set aside had not come forward to challenge the selection and the recommendation for prospective appointment, hence the writ was not maintainable, and as such no constitutional right of the J&K PSC was being affected.
Aggrieved, the J&K PSC approached the High Court again by way of a review petition, defending the selection of Proforma Respondent No.5.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the fact that Proforma Respondent No.4 not challenging his selection being set aside was a latent admission on his part that there was a bias operating in his favour, as the selection committee consisted of his teacher. The Court stated, “A bare perusal of the grounds of challenge on the basis of which the review petition is being sought would show that in meaning to seek review, the petitioner-J&K PSC is, in fact, missing wood for the trees, in the sense that this Court in dismissing the writ petition came to attend its attention to a very prominent fact that Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir, whose selection being challenged by Dr. Rajeev Gupta before the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT, Jammu Bench, Jammu never felt bothered to question said judgment adverse against him meaning thereby a latent admission on his part that in the viva-voce where he came to score over the respondent No. 1 – Dr. Rajeev Gupta a favour was done to him on which count the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT Jammu Bench, Jammu came to hold the selection of Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir as an outcome of bias operating in his favour because of presence of Dr. Atul Sharma in the interview committee born out from the fact that Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir happened to be the student of Dr. Atul Sharma.”
The Bench further noted that a constitutional body such as the J&K PSC could not file a writ petition against an adjudication made in a selection process.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that, “In view of the aforesaid, we, therefore, find that under the guise of writ petition, the petitioner-J&K PSC in fact is seeking to reagitate the matter forming subject matter of the writ petition. We, therefore, held the petition as misconceived and dismiss it.”
Cause Title: J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Rajeev Gupta & Ors. (RP No. 87/2022 in WP(C) No. 802/2022)
