BAIDYANATH YADAV versus ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.

BAIDYANATH YADAV versus ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS.

There was no statutory requirement for disclosure of reasons by the State Screening Committee, no evidence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias in the selection process, and the process for recommendation followed the rules and regulations. The High Court’s direction was without jurisdiction as neither the Court nor the Tribunal can reassess merit or direct that Respondent No. 1’s name alone be reconsidered.

Parties
Appellant: Baidyanath Yadav; Respondent No. 1: Aditya Narayan Roy; Respondent No. 9: Ram Prakash Sahni
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition on Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 06.04.2018 of High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 13773 of 2017
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court decision set aside.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of IAS Selection Process, Scope of Judicial Review, Selection and Appointment of Non SCS Officers to IAS, Natural Justice
Service Law Judicial Review of IAS Selection Process Scope of Judicial Review Selection and Appointment of Non SCS Officers to IAS Natural Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baidyanath Yadav

Appellant

Aditya Narayan Roy

Respondent No. 1

Ram Prakash Sahni

Respondent No. 9

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition on Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 06.04.2018 of High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 13773 of 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the non-recommendation of Respondent No. 1 to the UPSC by the State Screening Committee in violation of rules, regulations, or fairness?
  2. 2 Was the High Court correct in directing the inclusion of Respondent No. 1’s name?
  3. 3 Is the disclosure of reasons by the selection committee required under the relevant regulations?

Ratio Decidendi

There was no statutory requirement for disclosure of reasons by the State Screening Committee, no evidence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias in the selection process, and the process for recommendation followed the rules and regulations. The High Court’s direction was without jurisdiction as neither the Court nor the Tribunal can reassess merit or direct that Respondent No. 1’s name alone be reconsidered.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court decision set aside.

Orders

  • High Court order quashing appellant's appointment and directing Respondent No. 1’s recommendation to UPSC is set aside.
  • No further directions issued to reconsider or interfere with appointments for Selection Year 2014.