Disposed

Raj Aryan v. Union Public Service Commission

Jharkhand HC4 Jul 2024WPC/202/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a 10-year UPSC debarment imposed for violating NDA examination rules. Following the Delhi High Court's order in analogous cases and the UPSC's order dated 15.09.2021 reducing the debarment to the period already undergone, the court held the debarment ended on 03.09.2021 with no adverse future effect and disposed of the petition as infructuous.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raj Aryan Vs Union Public Service Commission — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 202 of 2020

¶2

Raj Aryan … … Petitioner Versus

¶3

Union Public Service Commission, Examination Branch (XII), Dholpur House, New Delhi

¶4

Under Secretary (NDA), Union Public Service Commission, Examination Branch (XII), Dholpur House, New Delhi

¶5

… … Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶7

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent-UPSC : Mr. Faiz Ur Rahman, Advocate -----

¶8

Order No. 11 Dated: 04.07.2024

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and cancelling the order no. 2/7(1)/2019/E-V dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2 – Under Secretary (NDA), Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi, whereby the Commission has debarred the petitioner from appearing in all the examinations to be conducted by it for a period of 10 years with effect from 09.11.2018. Further prayer has been made to declare that the action of the respondents in debarring the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay suitable compensation to him for jeopardizing his career for all time to come due to the aforesaid arbitrary order.

¶10

2. Mr. Faiz Ur Rahman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-UPSC, refers to order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 1205/2019 & CM Appeal No. 5947/2019 along with other analogous cases and submits that vide said order, similar writ petitions preferred by different students have

¶11

¶12

been held to be infructuous in view of the orders dated 15.09.2021 issued by the UPSC with respect to all the similarly situated candidates wherein the UPSC had already converted their permanent debarment by reducing the same to the extent of actual period of debarment already undergone by them till the date of issuance of the said Commission’s order i.e., 15.09.2021. The aforesaid orders were issued considering that no criminal action was established against all the concerned candidates by Bihar Police as well as they were of young age having long future before them.

¶13

3. Here, it seems appropriate to refer paragraph nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the order dated 15.09.2021 issued by the UPSC to one of the petitioners namely, Amit Kumar [W.P.(C) No. 1205/2019 & CM Appeal No. 5947/2019 filed before the High Court of Delhi] by mentioning the case of the present petitioner, which read as under:

¶14

“2. That since Shri Amit Kumar was also the member of this WhatsApp Group, A Show Cause Notice was issued to him to explain his position as he was found to have acted in contravention of the relevant provisions of Rule 5 of the NDA & NA Examination (II), 2018 Rules. The Commission found him guilty of violating the aforesaid provisions of the Examination Rules and, therefore, cancelled his candidature for his examination and debarred him permanently from appearing at all the future Examinations/Selections of the Commission vide letter dated 9^th November, 2018. In addition to above candidate, the Commission imposed the aforesaid penalty upon 53 more candidates.

¶15

3. That aggrieved with above decision of the Commission, some of these candidates filed court cases in the Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi, Bihar and Jharkhand. Shri Raj Aryan is one of the aforementioned candidates and he had filed W.P.(C) No.279/2019 in the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand. The Hon’ble High Court vide its common judgment dated 03^rd September, 2019 in the above WP (along with two tagged Writ Petitions i.e. WP(C) No. 3068/2019 of Maniratan Kumar and WP(C) No. 3059/2019 of Anupam Kumar Singh) directed to take a fresh decision by passing a Speaking Order.

¶16

¶17

4. That in deference to the above direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, the Commission re-examined the cases of the said three candidates and decided to reduce their penalty of permanent debarment to 10 years w.e.f their initial debarment. Again being not satisfied with this fresh decision of the Commission, Shri Raj Aryan filed a new Writ Petition (C) No.202/2020 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand.

¶18

5. That in view of the relevant facts of Shri Raj Aryan, the whole matter has been considered afresh once again in the Commission and it has been noted that nearly 3 years period has since been elapsed after the imposition of the penalty upon him in November, 2018; no criminal action has yet been established against him by the Bihar Police; he is of very young age and has a long future before him.

¶19

6. That after taking the comprehensive and holistic view of all the relevant facts of the case of Shri Raj Aryan, the Commission has decided to convert the 10 years’ debarment period of Shri Raj Aryan and reduce it to the actual period of debarment he has already undergone uptill now since November, 2018. Consequently, his debarment period stands expended and treated to be over by the date of issuance of the Commission’s order i.e. 03.09.2021.”

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the fact that similar writ petitions have already been held to be infructuous vide said order of High Court of Delhi and thus submits that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in the said terms, however, the petitioner is apprehensive that the said order of debarment passed by the UPSC may adversely affect his future career.

¶21

5. Since it has clearly been mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the order dated 15.09.2021 that 10 years debarment period of the petitioner is reduced to the period of debarment already undergone by him since November, 2018 and that his debarment period stands expended and treated to be over by the date of issuance of the Commission’s order i.e., 03.09.2021, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any adverse effect of the said debarment imposed

¶22

¶23

upon the present petitioner in his future prospects. It is further clarified that since the period of debarment has already come to an end as on 03.09.2021, there is no question that the same will have any adverse effect in the future career of the petitioner.

¶24

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as

¶25

infructuous.

¶26

7. I.A. No. 7014 of 2021 also stands disposed of

¶27

accordingly.

¶28

Manish

¶29

Raj Aryan v. Union Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raj Aryan v. Union Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary the Land and Revenue Department

Sumitra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagdeo Kumar Oraon Represented by His Power of Attorney Holder Mr Arvind Kachhap Vs Shashikant Shau

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Represented through Its Legal Cell Vs Sawita Devi

Shilpi Chandra Vs Namrata Chandra Alias Tumpa Chandra (Dutta)