Vinay Kumar Nanda vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned select list (Annexure P/1) with all consequential orders and actions and further be pleased to direct the respondent to issue fresh select list on the basis of proper calculation based on correct questions and answers in accordance with law, after considering and deciding the objections of petitioner, in accordance with law.

2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.

3 That, this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned select list (Annexure P/6) with all consequential orders and actions and further be pleased to direct the respondent to issue fresh select list on the basis of proper calculation based on correct questions and answers in accordance with law, after considering and deciding the objections of petitioner, in accordance with law.”

The facts of the present case are that respondent No.2/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 30.04.2010 for the total 74 posts of Chief Municipal Officer, Class-B & C. According to Clause 19 of the advertisement, the selection was to be made by conducting a written examination based upon multiple choice questions bearing

Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that respondent No.2/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission committed an error of law in publishing the select list without deciding the objections raised by the petitioner and other candidates. He further argued that according to Clause 22.2 of the advertisement, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission was under an obligation to decide objections before publication of the final select list. He also argued that 12 questions and their answers were wrong which affected the merit of the petitioner. He further

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose the submissions made Mr. Tiwari. They submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner and other candidates were considered by the Expert Committee and thereafter, the final model answer was published. They further submitted that the petitioner participated in the entire selection process and thereafter, challenged the recruitment process which is not permissible under the law. It is further argued that until and unless malafide or prejudice against the selection committee is pleaded and proved, the High Court should not interfere. It is also argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar another, 2024 SCC Online SC 258 held that the “judiciary must exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary intervention qua administrative decision(s) of the executive involving specialised expertise in the absence of any mala-fide and/ or prejudice.” They referred to paras 25 to 28 which are reproduced herein below:- “25. Now, turning to the issue framed in Paragraph 22 of 5 this Judgement above, we find ourselves grappling with a foundational principle of our constitution i.e., that the judiciary must exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary intervention qua administrative decision(s) of the executive involving specialised expertise in the absence of any mala- fide and / or prejudice. In this regard it would be appropriate to refer to our decision in Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2019) 14 SCC 81 whereunder this Court observed as under: “38….It has been cautioned that Constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute their view for that of the administrative authority. Mere disagreement with the decision-making process would not suffice.”

Similarly, this Court in State of Jharkhand v. Linde India Ltd., (2022) 107 GSTR 381 whilst delineating the scope of interference of the High Court exercising juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis a finding of fact by experts observed as under:

The overall grading and assessment of an IAS officer requires an in-depth understanding of various facets of an administrative functionary such as personality traits, tangible and quantifiable professional parameters which may include inter alia the competency and ability to execute projects; adaptability; problem-solving and

Accordingly, it is our opinion that the High Court entered into a specialised domain i.e., evaluating the competency of an IAS officer by way of contrasting and comparing the remarks and overall grades awarded to Respondent No. 1 by (i) the Reporting Authority; (ii) the Reviewing Authority; and (iii) the Accepting Authority, without the requisite domain expertise and administrative experience to conduct such an evaluation. The High Court ought not to have ventured into the said domain particularly when the Accepting Authority is yet to pronounce its decision qua the Underlying Representation.”

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Chief Municipal Officer in the year 2010; the examination was conducted on 12.12.2010 and thereafter, the model answer was published by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. The petitioner and other candidates raised their objections before the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. As per the return filed by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, the objections raised by the petitioner and other aspirants were considered and a final model answer was 7 published. The petitioner could not find a place on the merit list, therefore, he was not selected and thereafter, he filed this petition.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Khemka (supra) held that the judiciary must exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary intervention qua administrative decision(s) of the executive involving specialised expertise in the absence of any mala-fide and/ or prejudice. It is also held that the Constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute their views for that of the administrative authority.

The objections raised by the petitioner and other candidates were dealt with by the Expert Committee and this Court is not in a position to substitute their views as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Khemka (supra) and the facts of the present case, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)