Puja Khedkar, a former IAS trainee, has taken legal action against the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) by filing a petition with the Delhi High Court on Monday. This move challenges the UPSC’s recent decision to cancel her candidature. The case is being scrutinized by a bench led by Justice Jyoti Singh, who is overseeing the proceedings.
During the court session, senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing Khedkar, brought to light several crucial issues. She argued that a significant anomaly in Khedkar’s case is the lack of an official order formally notifying her of the cancellation. Jaising pointed out that, to date, Khedkar had only received information about her candidature being revoked through a press release. According to Jaising, this press release is insufficient as a formal notification and should be quashed.
She stressed that Khedkar needs the official order to be able to approach the appropriate tribunal for further action. Jaising expressed concern that the case seems to be unfolding largely through media coverage, which she believes is not a suitable way to handle such legal matters.
On the other hand, Advocate Naresh Kaushik, representing the UPSC, defended the commission’s actions. Kaushik explained that the issuance of the press release was necessary due to Khedkar’s unknown whereabouts.
He described the press release as a formal intimation intended to ensure that Khedkar was informed about the cancellation of her candidature, given the challenges in directly reaching her
In a further development, the UPSC informed the Delhi High Court of its intention to address the issue more formally. The commission assured the court that it would provide Puja Khedkar with the official order of her candidature cancellation within two days. This action is expected to deliver the necessary documentation to Khedkar, allowing her to pursue the matter through the appropriate administrative channels.
Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court directed Khedkar to take her challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The court recommended that Khedkar use this established legal avenue to contest the cancellation of her candidature.
The CAT is designed to handle disputes involving public service employees and is considered a suitable forum for reviewing administrative decisions such as the one in question.
This direction from the Delhi High Court underscores the procedural path Khedkar must follow to address her grievances. By referring her to the CAT, the court has outlined a clear route for Khedkar to seek a formal review of the UPSC’s decision. This step is crucial for ensuring that her challenge is examined under the relevant legal framework, providing a structured process for resolving the dispute.
As the case continues, the focus will be on how the UPSC addresses Khedkar’s concerns regarding the lack of formal notification and how the Central Administrative Tribunal reviews the legitimacy of the candidature cancellation.
The outcome will likely set important precedents for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the procedures for communicating significant decisions and the role of media in such legal disputes. The unfolding developments in this case highlight the complexities involved in administrative legal challenges and the importance of adhering to proper notification procedures.
As both parties prepare for the next steps, the judicial and administrative responses will be closely monitored for their implications on the broader landscape of public service and legal recourse.
