{"id":243298,"date":"2021-02-03T13:30:09","date_gmt":"2021-02-03T08:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=243298"},"modified":"2021-02-12T11:08:54","modified_gmt":"2021-02-12T05:38:54","slug":"cal-hc-adjudicate-or-legislate-what-is-the-role-of-courts-in-our-country-hc-frames-a-precedential-examination-while-discussing-scope-of-judicial-inquiry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/03\/cal-hc-adjudicate-or-legislate-what-is-the-role-of-courts-in-our-country-hc-frames-a-precedential-examination-while-discussing-scope-of-judicial-inquiry\/","title":{"rendered":"Cal HC | Adjudicate or Legislate? What is the role of Courts in our country? HC frames a precedential examination while discussing scope of \u2018Judicial Inquiry\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Calcutta High Court: <\/strong>Shekhar B. Saraf, J., in the instant matter after a precedential examination with regard to judicial inquiry, laid down a few principles for the same.<\/p>\n

Petitioners sought command towards Secretary of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission \u2013 Respondent 4 to allow petitioners to add their enhanced training qualifications, as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, 2016 in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary Level of Schools in pursuance of the Appointment Notification dated September 23, 2016, as well as to consider their candidatures as trained candidates as per verifications to be submitted online in terms of the latest verification notification dated December 28, 2020.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/u><\/span><\/h3>\n

Bench stated that in Aktarul Islam Kayal v. State of West Bengal, <\/em>W.P.A. No. 9597 of 2019, <\/span>Court did not set aside the advertisement published on September 23, 2016, and Commission was directed to hold a fresh selection of all candidates who were found to be eligible under Rule 12(2).<\/p>\n

The above position clearly prevents the court from any intervention with regard to such advertisement.<\/p>\n

Further, the fresh cause of action that arose was with regard to enhanced qualifications to be considered due to the fact that the selection process had been postponed by 4 years.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar<\/em>, (2003) 9 SCC 519<\/a> which had also consciously considered the decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar<\/em>, (1997) 4 SCC 18<\/a>, clearly reiterated the point of law that when there is no cut-off date provided for in the Rules, then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement\/notification inviting such applications.<\/p>\n

State or its constituent statutory bodies as the Commission have a right to fix a cut-off date in the advertisement for the purposes of such selection process. Furthermore, the cut-off date has to be adhered to and applied consistently for all persons and the same cannot be ignored for a particular person.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bench expressed that one cannot lose sight of the fact that the Courts in this country including High Courts, are institutions tasked to adjudicate and not to legislate.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the Supreme Court decision of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, <\/em>(2020) 9 SCC 356<\/a>, Court had reiterated the scope of the powers of a High Court exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n

Moving on to the precedents of the Supreme Court that prescribe non-interference in policy decisions of the State under this Court\u2019s judicial review powers, the Supreme Court had held in Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, <\/em>(2006) 10 SCC 337<\/a> as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201c11. The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or [is violative of] the fundamental rights of the citizen or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the court, it cannot interfere.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Supreme Court in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, <\/em>(2007) 4 SCC 737<\/a>, dealt with the entrenched scope of judicial review concerning governmental policy.<\/p>\n

3-Judge Bench headed by the then Chief Justice T.S. Thakur in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, <\/em>(2016) 6 SCC 408<\/a>, extensively discussed the scope of judicial interference in government policies.<\/p>\n

Based on the above precedential examination, the following distinct principles emerged:<\/strong><\/p>\n