Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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