'Limits Of Certiorari Jurisdiction': Delhi High Court Questions Predecessor Bench Approach Of Grilling Exam Topper

The Delhi High Court has questioned a predecessor Bench's approach of quizzing a litigant during proceedings concerning the withholding of his exam result for recruitment to the post of Assistant in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar observed that the limits of its certiorari jurisdiction do not permit such an “inquisitorial exercise.”

The Court noted that predecessor bench, in December 2021, had posed few questions to the candidate such as the identity of the President of the United States, the Finance Minister of India “and the like” and was not satisfied with the response.

On this, the Court said: “With great respect to the learned predecessor Bench, we are of the opinion that the limits of our certiorari jurisdiction do not allow us to carry out any such inquisitorial exercise.”

It added that in the lay litigant, the Court and its atmosphere suffused with legalese, often instils a sense of apprehension.

The Bench observed that there is every possibility that, on being grilled by a Court, a litigant might lose his cool and not be able to answer simple questions which, in a more placid setting, he might readily have been able to answer.

“While we have no doubt about the fact that the predecessor bench was bona fide seeking to satisfy itself about the respondent (litigant), we are of the opinion that we cannot decide this writ petition on the basis of the answers given by the respondent when grilled by the Court,” the Court said.

The Bench made the observations while dismissing a petition filed by ICAR challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing it to appoint the candidate in question retrospectively. His result was withheld on the basis of allegations of malpractice.

The dispute arose from the Assistant Grade Examination, 2014 conducted by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board for recruitment to the post of Assistant in ICAR. The litigant was the topper in the selection list. 

However, following a complaint against him, three committees successively examined the matter and his result was withheld, while the results of other candidates were declared.

Dismissing the plea, the High Court found that the material relied upon by ICAR did not justify withholding the candidate's result.

It noted that the first committee had proceeded largely on “probability and suspicion” without recording any positive finding of misconduct, while the other two committees did not even specifically advert to the respondent or his conduct.

The Court further noted that the second and third committees' findings did not establish any conclusive malpractice and, in several respects, in fact exonerated the candidates. It added that the critical findings remained in the realm of “conjecture, surmise and probability.”

“In these circumstances, what is more unsettling, for us, is the fact that, of all the candidates who underwent the examination, the only person whose result was withheld was the respondent. We do not deem it necessary to hazard a guess for the real reason behind this. Suffice it, however, to state that there is no sufficient justification to single out the respondent for exclusive treatment by withholding his result,” the Court said.

It also noted that the candidate had admittedly topped the examination and found “no justifiable basis whatsoever” for withholding his result.

Upholding the Tribunal's order, the Court observed that the CAT had not given the candidate a “clean chit” but had merely found that withholding his result on suspicion was not fair or legal, while leaving ICAR at liberty to proceed against him if positive material subsequently emerged.

Noting that eight years had elapsed, the Bench directed compliance with the Tribunal's order within eight weeks.

Title: INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ANR v. MR. KRISHAN KUMAR PASI

Click here to read order