Neelesh Jain vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Neelesh Jain, challenged the entire recruitment process and outcome of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CPSC) for various posts advertised on 26.12.2011. The petitioner participated in the screening test and main examination conducted on 4th and 5th May 2012. After the results were declared and interviews were conducted, the final merit list was prepared on 12.12.2013. The petitioner raised objections regarding erroneous answers and the deletion of some questions from the question paper, which he contended were not considered by the CPSC before preparing the final select list. The petitioner's marks were 1047.3643, placing him at serial No. 94, while selected candidates for Deputy Collector, District Excise Officer, and Commercial Tax Officer secured marks ranging from 1081.320 to 1083.7395.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's objections regarding erroneous answers and deletion of questions were considered by the CPSC, which is an expert body. The CPSC had already deleted some questions and awarded marks on a pro-rata basis, and had considered and decided on issues of erroneous answers. Therefore, the petitioner had not suffered any loss on account of question deletion, and the expert body's decision on erroneous answers was final. Furthermore, the Court noted that a specific direction was issued on 16.02.2021 to implead the appointed candidates as respondents, but this order was not complied with by the petitioner. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar and State of Haryana Vs. Ashok Khemka, the Court emphasized judicial restraint in interfering with administrative decisions of expert bodies in the absence of mala fide or prejudice, and the importance of impleading necessary parties. Consequently, the Court found no case for interference and dismissed the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the objections raised by the petitioner regarding erroneous answers and deletion of questions were adequately considered by the CPSC, and if not, whether this warrants quashing the entire select list? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness in recruitment processes). 2. Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, specifically the appointed candidates? (Question of law, turning on procedural requirements for writ petitions involving recruitment). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his objections concerning erroneous answers and deleted questions were not properly considered by the CPSC, and that the deletion of questions and erroneous answers went to the root of the selection process, necessitating the quashing of the entire select list. He prayed for reconsideration of his objections and preparation of a fresh merit list. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to implead the appointed candidates as respondents, making the petition liable for dismissal due to non-joinder. They also argued that issues related to erroneous answers and question deletion are matters for expert bodies like the CPSC and are not within the domain of the High Court, citing judgments from the Supreme Court. They relied on Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar Vs. Union Public Service Commission and others and State of Haryana Vs. Ashok Khemka and another.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 318 of 2014 Neelesh Jain S/o Ashok Jain Aged About 38 Years R/o Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Police Station And Post Ambikapur, Civil And Revenue Dist. Surguja C.G., Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh
C.G. Psc, Through Its Secretary, C.G. Public Service Commission, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Examination Controller C.G. Psc, Raipur Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. For Resp. No. 1/ State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy.Govt. Advocate For Res. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Adv. holding brief of Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.07.2024
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer(s):- “1) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and respondent authorities may kindly be directed to reconsider the objections raised by the petitioner on the basis of the materials produced by the petitioner i.e. Annex. P/9 and thereafter, prepare the fresh merit list and select list 2) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and the respondent authorities may kindly be direction not to delete the correct questions and to award the marks for the deleted questions and thereafter prepare a fresh merit list and select list. 3) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper. ”
2
By way of filing the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the entire recruitment process of the Public Service Commission and its outcome on the ground that the objection raised by the petitioner on the basis of the material produced by him was not considered and the merit list was prepared. It is also stated that some questions were deleted from the question paper whereas some questions were out of the syllabus and answers to some of the questions were erroneous.
Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an advertisement was issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission inviting applications from the desirous candidates for appointment on various posts on 26.12.2011. The petitioner as well as other aspirants submitted their application forms for various posts. A screening test as well as an objective type main examination was conducted on the 4th and 5th of May, 2012. Thereafter, the result was declared and 903 candidates were qualified for interview. From 22.11.2013 to 27.11.2013, the interview was conducted and thereafter on 12.12.20213 final merit list was prepared. Subsequently, the model answer was published by the Public Service Commission on its website. After receiving the objections from the candidates, some of the answers were modified whereas some of the questions were deleted from the question paper. The petitioner also raised objections with regard to some of the questions whose answers were erroneous and with regard to the deletion of some of the questions. On 29.12.2013, the final select list was prepared for the post of Deputy Collector, the last candidate of the Unreserved category who was at serial No. 14, had secured 1083.7395 marks; the candidate, who was selected for the post of District Excise Officer against Unreserved category (only one post was there) had secured 1083.055 marks. For the post of Commercial Tax Officer, which was Unreserved, the candidate had secured 1081.320 marks. The petitioner,
3 who was at Serial No. 94, had secured 1047.3643 marks. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the objection raised by the petitioner was not decided by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and without any sufficient reason some of the questions were deleted and answers to some of the questions were found erroneous. He also submitted that specific objections were raised by the petitioner in this regard, but the same was not considered before the issuance of the final select list. He further contended that the objections raised by the petitioner go to the root of the case; therefore, he would pray that the entire select list may be quashed and the Public Service Commission may be directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner.
On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents would oppose. They submitted that vide order dated 16.02.2021, the petitioner was directed to implead the appointed candidates as respondents, but till date, the same has not been complied with. They further submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of the necessary party. They also submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to erroneous answers to some of the questions and deletion of some of the questions is an issue which can be resolved by the Experts and it is not within the domain of this Court. They placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in answer; he raised objections with regard to certain questions. According to the petitioner, some of the questions were wrongly deleted after receiving objections from aspirants and answers to some of the questions were erroneous and despite raising specific objections by the petitioner, the same was not considered. The C.G. Public Service Commission, who is the expert body in conducting the examination, after receiving objections from the candidates, deleted some of the questions and awarded marks to all candidates on a pro- rata basis, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner suffered any loss on account of deletion of some of the questions.
With regard to erroneous answers to some of the questions, the Expert Body of PSC has already considered and decided on this issue. The objections raised by the petitioner and other candidates were considered and decided, therefore, also there is no force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this regard.
With regard to the non-joinder of parties, a specific direction was issued to the petitioner to implead the appointed candidates as respondents vide order dated 16.02.2021. The matter is listed in the final hearing list but till date, the order dated 16.02.2021 has not been complied with.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar (supra) in paragraph 11 while dealing with the issue of non-joinder of the parties held as under:-
Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel for the Commission referred to the averments contained in paras 1 to 6 of the counter-affidavit filed before this Court and argued that the method of moderation adopted by the Commission cannot be faulted on the ground that the same is contrary to the judgment in Sanjay Singh V. U.P. Publice Service Commission (2007),3 SCC 720.”
5
In the matter of Ashok Khemka and another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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. Relevant paragraphs 25 to 28 of the judgment read as under:- 25. Now, turning to the issue framed in Paragraph 22 of 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 intereference of the High Court exercising juri iction under Article 226 of the constitution of India Vis-a-vis a finding of fact by experts observed as under:
“7. As per the settled position of law, the High Court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not sitting as an appellate court against the findings recorded on appreciation of facts and the evidence on record. The High Court ought to have appreciated that there was a detailed inspection report by a six members committee who after detailed enquiry and inspection and considering the process of manufacture of steel specifically came to the conclusion that the work of oxygen is only of a "refining agent" and its main function is to reduce the carbon content as per the requirement. The said findings accepted by the assessing officer and confirmed up to the Joint Commissioner-revisional authority were not required to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court lacks the expertise on deciding the disputed questions and more particularly the technical aspect which could have been left to the committee consisting of experts.”
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 decision-making skills; planning and implementation capabilities; and the skill to formulate and evaluate strategy. The aforesaid indicative parameters are typically then analysed by adopting a specialised evaluation matrix and thereafter, synthesised by a competent authority to award an overall grade to the candidate at the end of the appraisal / evaluation. Accordingly, in our considered view, the process of evaluation of an IAS officer, more so a senior IAS officer entails a depth of expertise, rigorous and robust understanding of the evaluation matrix coupled with nuanced
6 understanding of the proficiency required to be at the forefront of the bureaucracy. This administrative oversight ought to have been left to the executive on account of it possessing the requisite expertise and mandate for the said task.
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.
Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioner failed to array the appointed candidates as party respondents and further that the objections raised by the petitioner and other candidates were already decided by the expert body, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. -
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge amita
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.