Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M. S. Mahesh vs Union Of India on 21 January, 2019
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.890-891 of 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.30228-29 of 2017)
M. S. MAHESH ETC.
… APPELLANTS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
… RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted.
1. These appeals have been filed questioning the judgment of the High Court by which the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras was set aside.
2. The appellants were selected by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai for appointment to the post of Substitute Helper – II in Group ‘D’ services. 28 candidates out of 41 joined the service. The remaining 15 were not appointed as the respondents realized that the selection was without issuing any advertisement or notification calling for Signature Not Verified applications from all eligible candidates.
Digitally signed bySATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2019.01.24 10:14:16 IST Reason:
3. As the appellants were not appointed, they filed O.A. Nos.448-449 of 2011 in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said O.A.s were disposed 2 of by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicants for appointment in any existing or future vacancies of Substitute Helper or equivalent category.
4. Pursuant to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the General Manager, Southern Railway considered the cases of the appellants for appointment as Substitute Helper. The General Manager held that the appellants’ request for appointment as Substitute Helper cannot be accepted in view of the irregularities in the selection process as pointed out by the Vigilance. On the basis of the said findings, the General Manager by an order dated 02.10.2013 held that the appellants cannot be appointed as Substitute Helpers.
5. The appellants challenged the order dated 02.10.2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was allowed by an order dated 14.10.2015. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the respondents to appoint the appellants to the post of Substitute Helper-II in Group D services and to regularize their services with effect from the year 2008 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
6. The Writ Petition filed by the respondents against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal was allowed by the High Court. The High Court observed that no transparent procedure was followed for selecting candidates as Substitute Helpers and merely because 28 candidates were permitted to join, the appellants do not have any legal right to claim appointment.
3
7. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the practice of appointing Substitute Helpers which was followed by the General Manager was prevalent in the other parts of the country as well. He submitted that the appellants cannot be denied appointment, particularly when 28 others who were selected along with the appellants were appointed in 2008. He also requested us to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct the appointment of the appellants.
8. Mrs. Madhvi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General contended that there is no dispute that the selection conducted in 2007 to the posts of Substitute Helper, Grade-II was without following any transparent procedure. The CBI which was asked to investigate submitted a report in which it is stated that selection conducted in 2007 was illegal. She submitted that these appeals deserve to be dismissed.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the selection conducted in 2007 on the basis of which the appellants are seeking appointment was without following any transparent procedure. We have perused the material on record including the various circulars pertaining to the procedure to be followed for selection to various posts in Railways. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept that the appellants are entitled for any relief only on the ground that some other persons were appointed earlier. The respondents are right in rejecting the request of the appellants for appointment by stating that illegality cannot be perpetuated. 4
10. As no legal right of the appellants has been infringed, they are not entitled for any relief. Therefore, we uphold the judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
..............................J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO) ............................................J. (MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI;
January 21, 2019.
5
ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).30228-30229/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-03-2017 in WP No.39592 and WP No.39593/2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras) M. S. MAHESH Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 21-01-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Petitioner(s) Mr.S.Nagamuthu, Sr.Adv.
Mr.M.P.Parthiban, Adv.
Mr.Ankur Prakash, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mrs.Madhvi Divan, ASG
Mr.A.K.Sanghi, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Anish Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Mr.V.Balaji, Adv.
Mr.Chandra Shekhar Suman, Adv.
Mr.Raj Bahadur, Adv.
Mrs.Anil Katiyar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (KAILASH CHANDER)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)