Center moves to SC to seek review of judgment on control of services in Delhi (Ld)
NEW DELHI, May 20 (IANS) The Center on Saturday moved the Supreme Court to seek a review of its May 11 ruling, as the court ruled that it was exemplary to consider that the democratically elected government of Delhi should control its officers, including IAS officers, and the Lieutenant Governor would abide by the advice of Elected government in everything other than public order, police and land.
This development came a day after the Center decided to issue a decree establishing a permanent authority known as the Civil Service Authority in the National Capital, which includes the Chief Minister of Delhi as its Chairman, the First Secretary, and the Principal Secretary (for the interior), to provide recommendations. To LG LG in connection with matters relating to transmission deployment, vigilance and other incidental matters.
The decree states that in the event of a difference of opinion, LG’s decision is final. Therefore, the decree was apparently brought to negate the Supreme Court ruling.
The revision petition, filed by the Centre, said: “To the extent that the said judgment finds the ideal conclusion to be that the GNCTD should have control over the ‘Services’, subject to the exclusion of subjects outside its legislative scope such as ministers charged with formulating policies in the territory of the NCTD will be To exclude them from the control of the civil service officers would be wholly anti-democratic, wholly contradictory, in ignorance of the applications made before the Court and in the appearance of plain error as well.”
The Center said the Supreme Court has held for itself that Parliament has legislative jurisdiction over all matters in List Two and List Three in relation to the NCTD, including entries that have been excluded from the NCTD’s legislative sphere under Section 239AA(3)(a).
“Although the said ruling ignores the clear exercise of Parliament’s power over the matter,” she said.
The petition for review alleged that the judgment of 11 May suffered from an apparent error on the face of the record because it did not deal with the Union Government’s arguments that the Constitution never considered a separate service cadre for the union territories.
“This is for the simple reason that the Union Territory is merely an extension of the Union of India, and the persons employed in the Union Territories are engaged in services and functions relating to the affairs of the Union Government,” she said.
The petition for revision argued that the provision suffers from an apparent error on the face of the record because it suffers from a fundamental fallacy in that it ignores that the work and action of capital’s government affects the nation as a whole.
“Admittedly, the said provision proceeds without appreciating that the candidate of the President or the LG or the central government, both of which are also a manifestation of democracy when compared to the elected Delhi government,” she said.
The petition was made that the central government be run by the people of the entire country who have a vital and overriding interest in governing the nation’s capital.
“The said provision suffers from an apparent error on the face of the record as it completely ignores that the DANICS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep, Daman and Dio W. Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Civil Services)) is a feeder cadre of the All India Services, which is the Indian administrative service. The appointment is considered In all Union Territories for Group B positions is common and selection is done through UPSC. It is also centralized and the appointment authority is the Ministry of Home Affairs.”
The petition argued that the need for revision arises due to the fact that the judgment of 11 May does not deal with the conflict between the 2018 Constitution Court ruling and the need to refer to a larger court.
The center urged the Supreme Court to allow her to register and address in open session for various reasons for review.
Delhi, though being a union territory, and therefore not a full state, has been raised to the status of a state, which is in the teeth of the nine-judge judgment in NDMC v Punjab State (1997), in which it is clearly stated that notwithstanding the amendment 69 to introduce a Delhi Legislative Assembly, the NCT of Delhi to remain a union territory,” the appeal said.
The Center argued that the contested ruling has the effect of destroying the basic structure of the Constitution, whereby with the effect of a joint reading of Articles 73, 239a and 246, the Union Government has dominant legislative and executive powers in relation to the Union. A territory is not a “state”.
On May 11, a five-judge panel headed by Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachod said the democratically elected government should control its officers.
Referring to the uniqueness of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD), the Supreme Court said that the Union Government and NCTD share a unique federal relationship and it does not mean that the NCTD is included in the Unity of the Union Government only because it is not a ‘State’.