Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

High Court Sets Aside Tribunal's Order Directing New High Power Committee: "Parallel Committee for Investigation is Impermissible"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling yesterday, the High Court of Delhi set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order that had directed the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to form a new High Power Committee for re-examining the results of withheld candidates. The High Court observed that creating such a committee would be "parallel to existing legal proceedings" and termed it "impermissible."

The Central Administrative Tribunal had earlier expressed concerns over whether the candidates were granted a "fair opportunity" for appointment and livelihood under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They directed SSC to create a new High Power Committee for this purpose, a move that met with considerable debate and finally reached the High Court.

The two-judge bench, consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, declared that "a parallel committee for investigation is impermissible" under existing circumstances where a general FIR has already been registered against certain candidates, and the challans have been filed in the concerned Criminal Court.

The court also noted that a committee formed by the SSC had already cleared 135 candidates for appointment and initiated criminal action against the remaining. The judges stated that the Tribunal "could not have directed the constitution of a High Power Committee to look into the cases of the respondents," essentially squashing the possibility of creating another committee for the same purpose.

The court clarified that the Original Applications pending before the Tribunal should be decided "in accordance with the law" and refrained from expressing opinions on the merit of the constitutional issues raised.

The judgment has been considered significant in balancing the judicial oversight of administrative procedures with respect to ongoing criminal investigations.

Date of decision: September 22, 2023

STAFF   SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS vs AJAY KUMAR AND ORS

Latest Legal News