Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ramesh Narain Saxena vs Chairman,Jal Sansthan . on 24 March, 2015
Bench: Vikramajit Sen, Abhay Manohar Sapre
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3219 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.27409/2009)
Ramesh Narain Saxena .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Chairman, Jal Santhan Agra & Ors. .. Respondent(s)
WITH C.A.NO.3220/2015 @ SLP(C)NO.9700/15 (CC.17481/10)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard Learned Counsel for the Parties. The Writ Petitioner, who is Respondent No.5 in these proceedings has been served but is not represented.
The operative part of the Impugned Judgment reads as under:
“Accordingly we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.6.2009 to the aforesaid extent whereby the learned Single Judge has proceeded to treat the selection by way of promotion and has upheld the criteria of seniority subject to rejection of unfit for selection on the post of Accountant. We however uphold the order of the learned Single Judge in so far as it quashes the selections and promotion of the appellants.
We further direct that the respondent jal sansthan to first proceed to take a decision through the competent authority as to under what valid rule and Signature Not Verified procedure of recruitment, they can fill up the post of Digitally signed by Accountant keeping in view the observations made herein Usha Rani Bhardwaj Date: 2015.04.13 17:22:55 IST above and thereafter hold fresh selections in accordance Reason:
with rules subject to the provisions of Section 8 and Section 27 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. We may observe that in the given set of circumstances, and subject to relevant rules and 2 regulations, it is always open to the employer to adopt a reasonable procedure for appointment including the method of limiting the zone of consideration to the departmental candidates only.” A perusal of the pleadings makes it abundantly clear that so far as the Jal Sansthan (i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before us) is concerned they have indeed adopted an objective mode of recruitment in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 and Section 27 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. The High Court did not find any malafides or favouritism or nepotism in the manner of recruitment, save for the fact that Rules and Regulations, had not been formulated by Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
It is also not in dispute that the Appellant has been in uninterrupted service since his initial appointment on 12th July, 1990. In Inderjeet Khurana vs. State of Haryana and Others. (2007) 3 SCC 102, this Court has already clarified that if Rules prescribing any method of recruitment have not been formulated, the Appointing Authority shall be empowered to follow “any reasonable and proper procedure for selection”. In the absence of any challenge as to the objectivity of the method adopted by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 these observations would be conclusively relevant. The result is that the appointment of the Appellant is insulated against challenge.
We have, however, not found any observation made by 3 the Division Bench in the Impugned Order pertaining to the period within which the drafting of the Rules and Regulations for recruitment or promotion are to be completed. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had been directed to frame these Rules as far back as six years but no action has been taken so far. We note that this Court has stayed the operation of the Impugned Judgment and we therefore, give the benefit of doubt to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for their non-action.
The Appeal is allowed. The finding in the Impugned Judgment to the effect that the Appellant's employment is set aside is not upheld; in other words, the Appellant shall be entitled to continue in service. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, who have not assailed the Impugned Judgment, are granted one year's time within which to frame Rules and Regulations pertaining to the appointment and promotion etc. of its employees. Failure on their part to abide by these directions, which are really in affirmation of the observations made in the Impugned Judgment, shall render them liable to proceedings for Contempt of Court.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3220/15 @ SLP(C).9700/2015 (CC.17481/2010):
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
In terms of the aforegoing order the services of the 4 Appellant shall continue and directions to the contrary made in the Impugned Judgment are reversed. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.
........................J. [ VIKRAMAJIT SEN ] ….......................J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ] NEW DELHI, MARCH 24, 2015.5
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.10 SECTION XI
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). 27409/2009
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/08/2009 in SA No. 1029/2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) RAMESH NARAIN SAXENA Petitioner(s) VERSUS CHAIRMAN,JAL SANSTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 17481/2010 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 24/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Ankur Yadav, Adv.
Mr.Avnish Singh, Adv.
Ujjawal Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr.Rituvendra Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Adv., Nos.1-3 Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The Appeals are allowed.
(USHA BHARDWAJ) (SAROJ SAINI)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
Signed order is placed on the file.