Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 223 (UTT)

Sanjiv Chaturvedi v. Union of India

2023-03-15

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. 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 and 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-110003.” 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 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. 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 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.P.C. 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 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. 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.