Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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