2023 (8) TMI 1594 - HC - Indian Laws

Delhi HC upholds preference for Chartered Accountants over Cost Accountants in CPSE Director Finance recruitment

RUCHIR AGRAWAL Versus PUBLIC ENTERPRISES SELECTION BOARD & ORS

RUCHIR AGRAWAL Versus PUBLIC ENTERPRISES SELECTION BOARD & ORS - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether Cost Accountants can be treated equivalent to Chartered Accountants for the appointment of Director (Finance) in CPSEs, and whether such preference violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.2. Whether the court can issue a writ of mandamus to set aside the preference clause without challenging the decision of the expert committee or the minutes of the meeting.Detailed Analysis:Issue I: Equivalence of Cost Accountants and Chartered AccountantsThe court examined whether Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants can be treated as equivalent for the appointment of Director (Finance) in CPSEs. The advertisement in question preferred Chartered Accountants over Cost Accountants. The court analyzed the roles and governing statutes of both professions, noting that they are regulated by different acts and have distinct roles. The court highlighted that some statutes, like the Income Tax Act, specifically distinguish between the two, indicating a legislative intent to treat them differently.The court further explored whether such differentiation violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment. Citing precedents, the court noted that reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia is permissible. The differentiation between Chartered Accountants and Cost Accountants was deemed reasonable, given the broader financial management responsibilities associated with the Director (Finance) role, which Chartered Accountants are better suited to handle. Therefore, the preference did not amount to discrimination or violate fundamental rights.Issue II: Issuance of Mandamus and Expert Committee DecisionsThe petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash the preference clause. The court discussed the nature and scope of mandamus, which is issued to compel the performance of a public duty. However, the court emphasized that relief cannot be granted for issues not explicitly prayed for in the petition. The petitioner did not challenge the minutes of the meeting or the decision of the expert committee that led to the preference clause.The court noted that expert committees, such as the respondent Body, are constituted to make informed decisions regarding high-level appointments and their decisions should not be interfered with unless there is evidence of bias or procedural irregularity. The petitioner did not question the constitution of the expert committee, nor was there any indication of mala fide intent. Therefore, the court found no grounds to interfere with the expert committee's decision.The court also addressed the petitioner's reliance on a previous case where a preference clause was interpreted differently. However, the court distinguished the circumstances of the current case, noting that the petitioner was a below-board level employee applying for an internal vacancy, unlike the previous case involving an external vacancy and a board-level applicant.Finally, the court observed that the petitioner applied for the position despite the preference clause and only challenged it after failing to be shortlisted. Citing legal precedents, the court held that a candidate cannot challenge the selection process after participating in it and failing to succeed.Conclusion:The court concluded that the preference for Chartered Accountants over Cost Accountants was justified and did not violate constitutional rights. The petitioner's request for mandamus was denied as it was not supported by a challenge to the underlying decision-making process. The petition was dismissed, and the court emphasized the necessity for CPSEs to appoint well-qualified candidates to ensure efficient operations.