DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE

2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF HIMALAYA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION No.

BETWEEN:

ANIL KUMAR
(Selected/Relative Candidate)

….PETITIONER/APPELLATE

VERSUS

THE STATE MEDICAL SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD and ORS

......RESPONDENT

PETITION FILED UNDER 226 OF THE IN DIAN CONSTITUTION

FOR THE ISSUE OF THE WRIT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881
 DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
a. CITATIONS
b. STATUTES
c. WEBSITES
d. DATABASES
e. BOOKS

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. ISSUES RAISED

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8. PRAYER

2
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881
 DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& AND

AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

Hon’ble HONOURABLE

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SC SUPREME COURT

V. VERSUS

i.e. THAT IS

HC HIGH COURT

SMSRB STATEMEDICAL SERVICE

RECRUITMENT BOARD

3
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881
 DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. Case Laws, Landmark Judgements, and Citations

a) S P Sampath Kumar V. UOI
b) Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala
c) Navendukumar Harshadbhai Brahmbhatt vs. State of Gujarat

2. Statutes

a) The Constitution of India, 1950

b) The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
c) The Civil Procedure Code, 1908

3. Websites

a) IndianKanoon.org (for accessing Indian case laws)

b) SCCOnline.com (for Supreme Court cases)

4. Databases

a) Manupatra (Legal research tool)

b) SCC Online

5. Books

a) Indian Constitutional Law by M.P. Jain

b) Administrative Law by M.P.Jain

4
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881
 DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Moot High Court to issue a
Writ to quash the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal.

5
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881
 DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. State of Himalaya (India) hasn't recruited doctors for the health

department in the last seven years.
2. The State Medical Service Recruitment Board (SMSRB) issued
a notification for 200 medical practitioner positions based on
reports from the Health Department.
3. Selection involved two written exams and an interview.
4. After written exams, 400 candidates were shortlisted for
interviews, with only 200 to be selected.
5. SMSRB formed 20 interview boards with 20 candidates
assigned to each.
6. One interview board member had a close relative among the
assigned candidates.
7. This member requested the government to be replaced during
their relative's interview, and the government agreed.
8. The relative-candidate was selected by the board.
9. An unsuccessful candidate challenged this selection due to
the conflict of interest, and the Administrative Tribunal cancelled
the relative's selection.
10. The relative-candidate then filed a writ petition before the High
Court seeking restoration of their selection.

6
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881
 DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Administrative Tribunal got jurisdiction to hear

service matter in this case?
2. Whether the Constitution of new selection Board in this
particular case is valid or not?
3. Whether the selection of the candidate is valid in law?

4. If the selection was not valid in law what is the relief to the
unsuccessful candidate?

7
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881
 DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Administrative Tribunal got jurisdiction to

hear service matter in this case?
Yes, the Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear service matters
in this case, specifically regarding the selection process for medical
practitioners in the State Health Department. The Administrative
Tribunals Act of 1985, under Section 15(1), and Article 323A of the
Indian Constitution empower the Administrative Tribunal with the
jurisdiction to hear service matters.

2. Whether the Constitution of new selection Board in

this particular case is valid or not?
The constitution of a new selection board for the candidate is not
valid, as the recusal process alone cannot ensure fairness, justice,
and natural justice. Merely recusing oneself does not eliminate
biased recruitment because their influence may still exist among
their colleagues, leading to unconscious favoritism towards their
relative.

3. Whether the selection of the candidate is valid in law?

No, the selection of the candidate is not valid in law as the selection process is
biased, violating principles of equality and fairness under the Indian
Constitution, undermining public trust and equal opportunities in
employment. This compromises the process's legitimacy, making the selection
invalid.

4. If the selection was not valid in law what is the relief to

the unsuccessful candidate?

If a selection was not valid in law, unsuccessful candidate have

multiple remedies to ensure justice. They can invalidate the process for
a legal restart, mandate reevaluations, or initiate a new, fair selection.
Interim relief may pause recruitment or block candidate appointments.
The wronged candidate could get legal cost compensation or damages
for substantial harm. Courts may also demand policy reforms,
transparency improvements, command fair reconsideration of
candidates through a writ of mandandus, and affirm rights to an
unbiased selection. These actions uphold public employment selection
integrity, ensuring lawful and equitable conduct.

8
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881
 DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Administrative Tribunal got jurisdiction to hear

service matter in this case?
Yes, the administrative tribunal has jurisdiction to hear service
matters in this case, specifically regarding the selection process for
medical practitioners in the State Health Department. The
Administrative Tribunal Act of 1985, under section 15(1), grants the
tribunal the authority to hear disputes related to the recruitment
and service of candidates. This provision ensures that disputes
arising from government recruitment processes are addressed
within a specialized legal framework, designed to offer swift and
effective resolution. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the administrative
tribunal is constitutionally sanctioned under Article 323A of the
Indian Constitution. In the landmark case of S P Sampath Kumar V.
UOI, the court affirmed the tribunal's jurisdiction over recruitment
matters.

2.Whether the Constitution of new selection Board in this

particular case is valid or not?
The constitution of a new selection board for the candidate is not
valid, as the recusal process alone cannot ensure fairness, justice,
and natural justice. Merely recusing oneself does not eliminate
biased recruitment because their influence may still exist among
their colleagues, leading to unconscious favoritism towards their
relative. This indirect influence can act as a background judge,
violating the principles outlined in the General Clause Act of
1897, particularly under section 21 which states that no man can
judge his own cause. This influence can impact the board's
perception and decisions through pre-decision bias. This situation
directly goes against the principles of natural justice, especially the
rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua), which is essential for a
9
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881
 DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM
fair and unbiased decision-making process. In Suresh Koshy George v.
The University of Kerala, the Court stressed the contextual application of
natural justice principles to ensure fair, transparent, and unbiased
administrative decisions. However, merely replacing a relative on the board
does not suffice to uphold the rule of law, rendering the new selection board's
constitution invalid.

3 .Whether the selection of the candidate is valid in law?

It is humbly submitted that the selection of the candidate should be
considered invalid due to the potential for both conscious and
unconscious bias. The principle of pre-decision bias, as highlighted
by the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh vs. UOI 2017 (1 SCC 472),
emphasizes the detrimental impact that the perception of bias can
have on public trust in the selection process. The presence of a close
relative on the board, despite their subsequent recusal, implies pre-
decision bias in the selection process and compromises the perceived
fairness of candidate selection. Additionally, unconscious biases,
whether through group dynamics or social pressures, can subtly
influence the board's decision-making process. This situation
violates the principles of the Indian Constitution's Articles 14 and
16, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunities
in public employment, respectively. The precedent case of
Navendukumar Harshadbhai Brahmbhatt vs. State of Gujarat
demonstrates how employment granted through nepotism, without
following proper procedures, is unfair. Given the above facts, the
selection process is biased and against natural justice, making it
unjust and unfair; therefore, this selection cannot be considered
legally valid.

10
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881
 DR B R AMBEDKAR LAW COLLEGE
2nd MOOT COURT PROBLEM
4 .If the selection was not valid in law what is the relief to the
unsuccessful candidate?

It is to humbly submits that if the selection find not valid in law, it has several
remedies at its disposal to ensure justice and adherence to legal standards. It
can quash the selection process, requiring a restart under lawful conditions. If
specific evaluation errors are identified, a reevaluation or reassessment by an
independent body may be ordered. The court might also direct the initiation of
a new selection process that meets fairness, transparency, and impartiality
criteria. Pending case resolution, interim relief could be granted to halt the
recruitment or prevent selected candidates from joining. The unsuccessful
candidate may receive compensation for legal expenses or, in rare cases,
compensatory damages for significant harm suffered due to the flawed process.
Furthermore, the court can mandate corrective policy implementations, order
enhanced transparency measures, issue a writ of mandamus for fair candidate
consideration, and make declarations affirming candidates' rights to a fair
selection process. These measures collectively safeguard the integrity of public
employment selection, ensuring it is conducted equitably and lawfully.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities

cited, and arguments advanced, we humbly pray to the Hon’ble
court to:

1. Dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner with costs.

2. Affirm the decision of the Administrative Tribunal.
3. Uphold the principles of fairness, transparency and justice
in the public service recruitment process.
4. To pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit
in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity.

11
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
BY
DASARI SUDHIR
PH.No.9346511881