DILIP B.BHOSALE - (1.) The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and Members, have instituted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling into question the order/notification dated 21.11.2017. By this order/notification, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5, read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) (for short, 'Act, 1946'), with consent of the State Government, has extended the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for conducting enquiry/investigation into serious allegations against the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, 'UPPSC') in respect of examinations and their results held/declared during the period between 01.04.2012 and 31.03.2017 (for short "relevant period"). Further, they have also prayed for a writ of mandamus, restraining respondent nos. 1 to 3 from interfering in any manner, with the functioning of UPPSC. By way of an amendment application, bearing No. 2/18, the petitioners also questioned the letters dated 31.07.2017 and 06.09.2017, and the order dated 31.07.2017 issued by the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh. By the letters dated 31.07.2017 and 06.09.2017, the Principal Secretary requested the Government of India for CBI enquiry/investigation as per the State Government's order dated 31.07.2017 into the allegations levelled against UPPSC in respect of the examinations/results declared during the relevant period.
(2.) The factual matrix, sans unnecessary details, leading to this petition, is as follows: 2. 1 The Chairman and Members of UPPSC, who are presently holding office, were appointed between June 2012 and November 2016, during the regime of previous 'Samajwadi Party' government. The Bhartiya Janta Party, after general elections, came into power on 19.03.2017. The present Chairman was appointed on 15.03.2016. 2. 2 The selections made by UPPSC, during the relevant period, are subject matter of enquiry/investigation initiated on the basis of the impugned order dated 21.11.2017. The enquiry/investigation was sought by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of large number of complaints received through different sources, including the complaints forwarded by the Prime Minister office and the Governor office, only during the regime of the present government but even during the regime of "Samajwadi Party" government. It was also on the basis of allegations made in large number of writ petitions filed by different persons, including Public Interest Litigation No. 51911 of 2015, filed by Shri Julio F. Ribeiro, Ex. D.G.P., Punjab and Ors. seeking CBI enquiry/investigation and Public Interest Litigation No. 29323 of 2015 filed by Satish Kumar Singh against Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav, the then Chairman, UPPSC, calling into question his appointment as Chairperson. To understand the nature of allegations and the backdrop against which CBI enquiry/investigation was sought, it would be advantageous to reproduce averments made in paragraphs 8,9,10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. The relevant paragraphs read thus: "8. That after the appointment of Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav as Chairperson of the Commission in April 2013, various complaints of all kind by examinees were received directly by the State Government or rooted through the office of the Prime Minister of India/Governor of the State in various department-wise selections. Apart from the students and examinees, even public representative have approached against the selections conducted by the Commission. Such complaints related to promoting candidates of a particular caste from a particular region in the name of scaling in the examination in various selections of PCS, Lower Sub-ordinate, Review Officers Examination, Assistant Prosecuting Officer Examination as well as make topper the son of Ex-D.G.P. in PCS-2015, changing of answer-book of Suhasini Bajpayee in PCS- 2015 etc. There are large numbers of complaints of appointment of relatives of the members of the Commission. There is large scales protest also against selection being held by the Commission. More than 58 such complaints were received by the State Government, which shall be placed before this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of the case. In view of such large scale resentment and serious charges in the public examinations conducted by the Commission, the image of the Commission started eroding affecting the faith in such public examinations, so much so that several public interest litigation's being PIL No. 51911 of 2015, Shri Julio F. Rebeiro, Ex-DGP, Punjab and others v. State of U.P. and others , PIL No. 29323 of 2015, Satish Kumar Singh v. Anil Kumar Yadav, Chairman, UPPSC, Allahabad and others were filed calling into the question of appointment of Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav as Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. In the aforesaid petitions a writ of quowarranto has been sought with consequential direction for setting aside the notification dated 02.04.2013 appointing him to the post of Chairperson. This Hon'ble Court vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2015 allowed the writ petitions by issuing a declaration that appointment of Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav as Chairperson of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission was ultra vires, arbitrary and in breach of the provisions of Article 316 of the Constitution of India. ... 9. That it is out of place to mention here that aggrieved from the grave irregularities in public examinations being conducted by the Commission and other serious irregularities, several public interest litigation's being PIL No. 67438 of 2015, Shri Julio F. Rebeiro v. Union of India and others, PIL No. 8643 of 2016, Pratiyogi Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P. and others , PIL No. 64416 of 2015 Satya Prakash Bharti Advocate v. State of U.P. and others , PIL No. 1546 of 2016 Anand Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and others and PIL No. 1147 of 2016, Dr. Dhirendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others were filed before this Hon'ble Court of which last three were connected to each other. More than 78 writ petitions regarding irregularities in examination patterns and declaration of results filed before this Hon'ble Court. 10. That as the public faith in competitive examinations being conducted by the Commission started eroding, even detrimental to the role and image of the Commission, the Appointment and Personnel Department was constrained to forward a wide spread complaints before the State Government in respect to the examinations conducted between 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 for proposed enquiry through some independent agency, whereon a decision was taken for CBI enquiry/investigation into the serious allegations against Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad, whose results were declared between 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary (Home) vide letter dated 31.07.2017 and 06.09.2017 requested the Government of India for CBI investigation as per the notified consent order of the State Government dated 31st July 2017..... 11. That a bare perusal of the order of the State Government dated 31st July 2017 makes it apparent that it has sought enquiry/investigation only into the serious allegations against Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh in the examinations, whose results were declared between 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 in public interest....." (emphasis supplied) 2. 3 It would also be advantageous to have a glance at the order/notification dated 21.011.2017, issued by the Government of India, impugned in the present writ petition, which reads thus:"Notification In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section (5) read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Uttar Pradesh, Home (Police) Section 11, Lucknow vide Notification No. 1611(1)6-P-17- 288M/2017 dated 31.07.2017 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for conducting enquiry/investigation into the serious allegations against the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad in which the examinations whose results were declared between 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 will come in scope of enquiry. [F. No. 228/38/2017-AVD-II]Sd/illegible S.P.R. Tripathi) Under Secretary to the Government of India"(emphasis supplied) 2. 4 Similarly, we also would like to reproduce the order issued by the State Government, requesting the Government of India to entrust the enquiry/investigation to CBI into the allegations against UPPSC, dated 31 July 2017, which reads thus: "In pursuance of the provisions of Section-6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act-1946 (Act 25 of 1946) the Governor of State of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to accord the consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for enquiry/investigation into the serious allegations against the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad in which the examinations whose results were declared between 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2017 will come in scope of enquiry." (emphasis supplied) 2. 4.1 The proforma for making reference to the Central Government for CBI enquiry/investigation, which was an enclosure to the order dated 31.03.2017, reads thus: "Proforma for making reference to Central Government for CBI Inquiry/Investigation JUDGEMENT_158_LAWS(ALL)2_2018_1.html 2. 5 The petitioners contend that the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh State Staff Selection Commission alongwith Members resigned in April 2017 for unknown reasons. Similarly, the Chairman alongwith Members of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission also resigned for unknown reasons in the month of August 2017. Having so stated, the petitioners, i.e. the Chairman and Members of UPPSC, in the writ petition, have stated that since they did resign as the others and having realised that they cannot be removed without taking recourse to the procedure contemplated under Article 317 of the Constitution of India, respondent no.4 - the then Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, called the Chairman on 03.04.2017 and counselled him to resign alongwith other Members of UPPSC. They, however, declined do so, since, the request made by respondent no.4 was absolutely illegal and he had no authority in law to make such a request. It is further alleged that, being upset by the decision of the Chairman and the Members in offering their resignations, respondent no.4 called the Secretary of UPPSC and directed him to stop all ongoing interviews and also to withhold all results. According to the Chairman, respondent no.4 also telephoned him and directed to stop all ongoing interviews. Though, initially the Chairman declined to accede to the request/command, in view of immense pressure in the nature of threat, they had to stall all ongoing selection process. The results were also put on hold. In this backdrop, the petitioners alleged, the Government evolved a novel method to pressurize the Chairman and Members of UPPSC to exit from the office. It is further alleged that in this design, the State Government got certain complaints generated and fabricated against the functioning of UPPSC. Respondent no.4, then called a meeting on 25.05.2017, which, according to the Chairman, he attended unwillingly alongwith the Secretary and Controller of Examinations of UPPSC. During the meeting, as stated in paragraph 27 of the petition, respondent no.4, assisted by the Principal Secretary (Karmik), mentioned about the allegations made against the Commission and asked them to submit a point wise report. It is specifically stated in this paragraph that though the allegations against the functioning of UPPSC were made by respondent no.4, he did furnish any complaint or proof which formed the basis of allegations. Pursuant to the meeting dated 25.05.2017, the UPPSC prepared a report and sent it to the State Government, with its covering letter dated 01.06.2017, alongwith all relevant records. 2. 6 The petitioners, in paragraph 31 of the writ petition, state that on 20.07.2017, the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, sent a fax message to the Secretary, UPPSC, requesting him to attend a meeting at 6.30 p.m. in his chamber on 21.07.2017. In pursuance thereof, the Secretary and the Controller of Examinations attended the meeting in which the Chief Secretary told them to resume interview process and also to declare results, if any. 2. 7 In this backdrop and having realised that neither the Chairman nor Members of UPPSC were prepared to resign, according to the petitioners, the Government took a decision and in pursuance thereof, the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh (Mr. Arvind Kumar) addressed a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India, New Delhi dated 31.07.2017, requesting to hold a detailed enquiry/investigation through CBI and accordingly the impugned notification dated 21.11.2017 came to be issued.
(3.) Two supplementary affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioners. The first is filed by the Chairman, wherein the letter dated 31.07.2017, issued by the State Government, requesting enquiry/investigation through CBI has been specifically referred to. In paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit, the Chairman has stated that on 11.08.2017, UPPSC, in its meeting, passed a resolution to file a writ petition before this Court against CBI enquiry. It is further stated that the Chairman was questioned by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh as to how he could file a writ petition without prior permission of the State Government. In the second supplementary affidavit, the Under Secretary of the petitioners stated that in none of the writ petitions filed so far against UPPSC, allegations of corruption are made against them and, therefore, there exist no justification for initiating CBI enquiry/investigation against UPPSC as a whole. He has also stated that the constitution of Commission has changed from time to time on various occasions and as many as two Chairmen and three Members had retired between the relevant period, and therefore, there is no justification in holding enquiry/investigation against the UPPSC as a whole.;