<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench, order for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in staff appointments to the secretariats of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council in 2022-23.</p><p>A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol stayed the CBI probe till the next day of hearing.</p><p>The court also issued notice on the plea by the Legislative Council UP Lucknow and Uttar Pradesh government challenging the high court order of September 18, 2023. </p><p>Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh, contended that the Chairman following the 2019 amendment under the rules framed under Article 187 of the Constitution was allowed to use an external agency for recruitment.</p><p>Advocate Ankit Roy represented three private parties – Sushil Kumar, Amrish Kumar, and Ajay Kumar Tripathi -- before the apex court, who were petitioners in the high court.</p><p>Roy contended to make CBI a party in the case before the Supreme Court as the high court had directed CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry (PE) on September 18, and CBI registered the PE on September 22. However, the apex court did not accept his contention at this stage.</p><p>The court sought a response from the writ petitioners within four weeks.</p><p>The plea claimed the High Court has ordered a CBI inquiry into the recruitment conducted by the petitioners as per Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976, as amended in 2019, even without any material on record or hearing on the issue.</p><p>It claimed that a perusal of the high court would clearly demonstrate that the court has, without any basis, presumed that the selection process for recruitment to the Secretariat of the UP Legislative Council, which was done through an external agency chosen by the Chairman of the Council as per Rule 22(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976, was tainted with criminality.</p><p>“The High Court has also failed to appreciate that the appellants before it, were unsuccessful candidates who had participated in the recruitment process under the said 2019 Amendment, and had only challenged the same when they failed in the same,” the plea said.</p><p>In September, the High Court's bench of Justices A R Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla directed the CBI to submit its preliminary report within six weeks, in view of allegations of irregularities in staff appointments to the secretariats.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench, order for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in staff appointments to the secretariats of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council in 2022-23.</p><p>A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol stayed the CBI probe till the next day of hearing.</p><p>The court also issued notice on the plea by the Legislative Council UP Lucknow and Uttar Pradesh government challenging the high court order of September 18, 2023. </p><p>Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh, contended that the Chairman following the 2019 amendment under the rules framed under Article 187 of the Constitution was allowed to use an external agency for recruitment.</p><p>Advocate Ankit Roy represented three private parties – Sushil Kumar, Amrish Kumar, and Ajay Kumar Tripathi -- before the apex court, who were petitioners in the high court.</p><p>Roy contended to make CBI a party in the case before the Supreme Court as the high court had directed CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry (PE) on September 18, and CBI registered the PE on September 22. However, the apex court did not accept his contention at this stage.</p><p>The court sought a response from the writ petitioners within four weeks.</p><p>The plea claimed the High Court has ordered a CBI inquiry into the recruitment conducted by the petitioners as per Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976, as amended in 2019, even without any material on record or hearing on the issue.</p><p>It claimed that a perusal of the high court would clearly demonstrate that the court has, without any basis, presumed that the selection process for recruitment to the Secretariat of the UP Legislative Council, which was done through an external agency chosen by the Chairman of the Council as per Rule 22(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976, was tainted with criminality.</p><p>“The High Court has also failed to appreciate that the appellants before it, were unsuccessful candidates who had participated in the recruitment process under the said 2019 Amendment, and had only challenged the same when they failed in the same,” the plea said.</p><p>In September, the High Court's bench of Justices A R Masoodi and Om Prakash Shukla directed the CBI to submit its preliminary report within six weeks, in view of allegations of irregularities in staff appointments to the secretariats.</p>
