Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dinesh Chandra Mathur vs Ramesh Chand Jain . on 15 July, 2014
\ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6516 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.12915/2007)
DINESH CHANDRA MATHUR & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAMESH CHAND JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
At the very outset, we make it clear that disposal of this civil appeal is confined to the facts pertaining to Appellant Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent Nos.1 to 4. The impugned judgment is common judgment passed by the High Court in seven Civil Special Appeals. Therefore, it will be open for the other appellants to refer to the impugned order either in support of their submissions or while challenging the correctness of the judgment impugned. The same will be considered on their own merits when we deal with those Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad appeals/petitions.
Date: 2014.07.1911:20:33 IST Reason:
As far as this appeal is concerned, the 1 challenge is to a part of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.689 of 1996. The grievances of the appellants are that they were all appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Project Engineer (Junior) in the Rajasthan Housing Board in the year 1982-83. They also claimed that in the year 1983-84, based on the advertisement issued by the Board for the post of Project Engineer (Junior) and Project Engineer (Senior), the appellants appeared in the written examination and those who were qualified in the written examination were called for interview by letter dated 18.10.1985 and that the Board did not, however, declare the results and kept the appointments pending.
Be that as it may, on 28.5.1986 the Board in its 124th Meeting (Agenda Item No.124.12) decided to amend the regulations, inserted screening clause pursuant to which the appellants’ underwent a screening process and by order dated 19.5.1987 they were all selected and allowed to continue in the post of Project Engineer (Junior) on regular basis. A little later, by order dated 21.11.1987 based on the 2 recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee headed by the Chairman of the Board, the appellants were all promoted to the post of Project Engineer (Senior). The said position continued till the writ petition came to be filed at the instance of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein in Writ Petition No.1487/1996, wherein the following prayer came to be made:-
"(ii) by an appropriate writ,
order or direction the
respondent-Board may kindly be
directed to first publish final
seniority list of Project Engineer (Senior) who are working in the cadre in accordance with the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees (Conditions of Recruitment & Promotions) Regulations of 1976 and while issuing the same the quota of 50% : 50% for the cadre of Project Engineer (Senior) be taken into consideration and the petitioners be declared senior and be placed above all those candidates who were appointed in the cadre of Project Engineer (Junior) by screening vide order dated 21.11.1987 in the cadre of Project Engineer (Senior) and after due preparation of the seniority list the persons working in excess to the quota be relegated to the subsequent years." The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the issue went before the Division Bench by way of appeal preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 4. It is also 3 relevant to note at this juncture that the appellants were not impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition. The attempt of the appellants to get them impleaded also did not fructify. The learned Judge while rejecting their application for impleading themselves as respondents allowed them to intervene in the writ petition as it was ripe for hearing. Of course, at the appellate stage, again at the initiative taken by the appellants, they were impleaded as party respondents.
It was in the abovestated background the present impugned order came to be issued and by which the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 was allowed and thereby their claim for considering their seniority over and above the appellants ignoring the order of appointment of the appellants as Project Engineer (Senior) by order dated 21.11.1987 was countenanced.
Respondent Nos.1-4 admittedly came to be appointed as Project Engineer (Senior) by order dated 27.03.1989 based on an advertisement made by the Board in the year 1988. To our repeated 4 query to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1-4, learned counsel was not able to state as to at any point of time, either the appointment of the appellants on 19.5.1987 in the post of Project Engineer (Junior) after the screening test or their subsequent promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) by order dated 21.11.1987 was challenged before any Forum or even in the present writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1-4 or in the subsequent appeal preferred before the Division Bench.
In the abovestated background, we fail to see as to how respondent Nos.1-4 had any locus at all to claim any seniority over and above the appellants whose entry into service as Project Engineer (Senior) was long before the entry of respondent Nos.1-4 in the said post. In other words, the appellants’ entry into the post of Project Engineer (Senior) was two years before the entry into service of respondent Nos.1-4. Unfortunately, the Division Bench did not address itself to the abovesaid aspect as regards the rights of respondent Nos.1-4 to question the seniority of the appellants based 5 on their respective dates of entry into service in the post of Project Engineer (Senior).
Therefore, on that sole ground the appellants are entitled to succeed and, accordingly, that part of the judgment rendered as against the appellants in the present impugned order passed in Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.689/1996 dated 25.05.2007 is set aside and the appeal is allowed to that extent.
................................J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ................................J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH] NEW DELHI;
JULY 15, 2014.
6
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.9 SECTION XV
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). 12915/2007 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/05/2007 in SAW No. 689/1996 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur) DINESH CHANDRA MATHUR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAMESH CHAND JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) (For Final Disposal) WITH SLP(C) No. 19220-19223/2007 (With prayer for Interim Relief and Office Report) T.C.(C) No. 80/2013 (With appln. for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to bring additional facts and documents on record) Date : 15/07/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Puneet Jain,Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Jain,Adv.
Ms. Shobha,Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Rana,Adv.
Mr. Prassana Mohan,Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Bana,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vijay Hansaria,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Avnish Pandey,Adv.
Mr. B. D. Sharma,Adv.
Mr. S.C. Varma,Adv.
Mr. Ved P. Arya,Adv.7
Mr. Manish Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh,Adv.
Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran,Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta,Adv. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi,Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Bana,Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv.
Mr. M.L. Lahoty,Adv.
Mr. Paban K. Sharma,Adv. Ms. Gargi B. Bharuli,Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Singhania,Adv.
Mr. Manu Mridul,Adv.
Ms. Ekta Rai,Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta,Adv.
Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mrs. Deep Shikha Bharti,Adv. Mr. R.D. Gupta,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) NO.12915/2007 Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
SLP(C) No. 19220-19223/2007 & T.C.(C) No. 80/2013 Post on 22.07.2014, as part heard, after the overnight part heard matter, if any.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order in CA No....@ SLP(C) No.12915/2007 is placed on the file) 8