Dismissed¶¶48

Vinay Kumar Nanda v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC26 Aug 2024WPS/488/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Scope of judicial review over recruitment processes: writ court refuses to re-evaluate correctness of MCQ questions/model answers where an Expert Committee considered candidates' objections and published a final model answer; judicial restraint doctrine applied via State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka (2024 SCC Online SC 258); no interference absent mala fide or prejudice; Article 226 jurisdiction discussed through quoted precedents (Caretel Infotech; State of Jharkhand v. Linde India). Keywords: judicial restraint; expert committee; model answer key; select list; Clause 22.2 objections window; Chief Municipal Officer; Chhattisgarh PSC; writ petition dismissed; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶¶48

Vinay Kumar Nanda Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned select lists (Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/6) for the Chief Municipal Officer recruitment, published without deciding the petitioner's objections to 12 questions/model answers, ought to be set aside and a fresh select list directed on the basis of corrected questions and answers. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

In light of the law in Ashok Khemka (supra) and the facts of the case, no good ground was found to entertain the petition challenging the select list.

¶¶48

Ratio / Principle

Following State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka, the judiciary must exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary intervention in administrative decisions involving specialised expertise in the absence of mala fide and/or prejudice; constitutional courts are expected to exercise restraint and ought not substitute their views for those of the administrative authority.

¶¶47

Key takeaways

The objections raised by the petitioner and other candidates were dealt with by the Expert Committee, and this Court, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is not in a position to substitute the Expert Committee's views on the correctness of questions/model answers.ratio¶¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recruitment — 74 posts of Chief Municipal Officer (Class-B & C) advertised on 30.04.2010 by Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission — selection by MCQ written examination held 12.12.2010 — model answers published 16.12.2010 inviting objections under Clause 22.2 — petitioner objected to 12 questions/answers on 28.12.2010 — select list published 04.02.2014, alleged to be without deciding the objections — petitioner sought quashing of the select list and a fresh select list. HELD: Per State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 258, the judiciary must exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary intervention in administrative decisions involving specialised expertise in the absence of mala fide and/or prejudice, and constitutional courts must not substitute their views for those of the administrative authority; the objections had been dealt with by the Expert Committee, whose view the writ court could not substitute. Petition dismissed; no order as to costs. (Single judge; marked NAFR.)

¶1

¶2

REKHASINGH Digitallysigned byREKHASINGH

¶3

2024:CGHC:32428

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 488 of 2014

¶7

Vinay Kumar Nanda S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Nanda Aged About 39 Years R/o Risaipara, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, Ps And Distt Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Ps Rakhi, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Praveen Singh, Through The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vijay Pandey, Through The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Khajanchi Kumhar, Through The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ishwar Prasad Trivedi, Through The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

7 - Lal Ajay Bahadur Singh, Through The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Raghav Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. For Respondent No.2/PSC: Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For respective respondents: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate holding

¶16

-2-

¶17

the brief of Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

27.08.2024

¶21

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶22

“ 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.

¶23

10.2 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.

¶24

10.3 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.”

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

four answers for each question. There were two question papers of 100 questions each containing one mark for each question. The petitioner along with other eligible candidates participated in the recruitment process and after the declaration of the result, a merit list was prepared. As per Clause 22.2 of the advertisement, in case of any mistake in questions or model answers, the objection could be raised within a period of 15 days and it was to be decided within a further period of 15 days and it could not be entertained after 15 days. On 16.12.2010, the model answer was published on the official website and objections were invited. On 28.12.2010, the petitioner submitted his objections with regard to 12 questions and their answers in both question papers No. 1 & 2 of Set-B. It is pleaded that a select list was published on 04.02.2014 without deciding the objections raised by the petitioner and other candidates.

¶28

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

¶29

-4-

¶30

submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner were not decided for the reasons best known to the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. He also submitted that the respondent authorities may be directed to quash the earlier select list and prepare a fresh select list based on correct questions and answers.

¶31

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 issue in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Ashok Khemka and 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:-

¶32

“ 25 . Now, turning to the issue framed in Paragraph 22 of

¶33

¶34

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 malafide 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:

¶35

“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.”

¶36

26 . 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 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis a finding of fact by experts observed as under:

¶37

“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 Commissionerrevisional 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.”

¶38

27 . 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

¶39

-6-

¶40

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 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.

¶41

28 . 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.”

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

published. The petitioner could not find a place on the merit list, therefore, he was not selected and thereafter, he filed this petition.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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).

¶49

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶50

Rekha

Vinay Kumar Nanda v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Nanda v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Geeta Meshram Vs Advocate General

Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhirendra Vishwakarma Vs Rasheed Hasmi

Bishnu Pada Ghosh Vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Ors.

Premshankar Brahmbhatta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Mini Bai Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.