Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, D. Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 14.11.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing his miscellaneous application (M.A.No.149 of 2021) in O.A.No.123 of 2017. The petitioner had originally filed O.A.No.123 of 2017 seeking to quash the order dated 02.01.2017 of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and to direct his appointment as Senior Scientific Officer Grade II (Explosives) in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) with effect from 16.12.2014, along with consequential benefits. The petitioner had applied for the post pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.05.2013. He attended the interview and obtained 65 marks, ranking third among OBC candidates. The first-ranked candidate (70 marks) and second-ranked candidate (66 marks, Narendra Kumar Biswal) were selected. The petitioner alleged that Narendra Kumar Biswal had submitted a false experience certificate and that his application should not have been considered. He sent a representation dated 23.12.2013 to the authorities. The CAT dismissed the original application, and the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application for review, which was also dismissed. The High Court examined the scope of judicial review in selection matters, noting that courts cannot re-evaluate the merits of candidates unless there is procedural irregularity or mala fides. The petitioner failed to prove that the experience certificate was false or that the selection process was vitiated. The court also held that the review application was not maintainable as there was no error apparent on the record. Regarding the claim of discrimination, the court found that the petitioner was not similarly situated to the candidate he compared himself with. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the CAT was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection Process - Judicial Review - Scope limited to procedural irregularities and mala fides, not re-evaluation of merits - Petitioner alleged false experience certificate by selected candidate but failed to prove - Held that courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of the selection committee (Paras 10-15). B) Service Law - Review Application - Maintainability - Review cannot be used as an appeal - Petitioner sought review of Tribunal's order dismissing OA, but no error apparent on record - Held that review is not a rehearing (Paras 16-20). C) Service Law - Discrimination - Article 14 - Petitioner claimed discrimination vis-à-vis another candidate, but facts showed different circumstances - Held that equals must be treated equally, but unequals cannot claim parity (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's miscellaneous application seeking review of its earlier order, and whether the petitioner was entitled to notional appointment and seniority.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 14.11.2022 in M.A.No.149 of 2021 in O.A.No.123 of 2017 was upheld.
Law Points
- Judicial review of selection process limited to procedural irregularities
- not re-evaluation of merits
- burden of proof on petitioner to establish fraud or mala fides
- no discrimination if similarly situated candidates not identically placed
- review application cannot be used as appeal.
