advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Union Public Service Commission
Service matter – Non supply of UPSC Advise report before imposing penalty is void – charges framed against delinquent – denied – Enquiry found no charges proved and send the report – Disciplinary Authority not satisfied the report and formed opinion to punish the delinquent – issued show cause notice – explanation submitted – Disciplinary authority send the same for opinion of UPSC – advise of U.P.S.C – not furnished and not asked for explanation from the delinquent – challanged – tribunal dismissed – High court set aside the both orders and direct to furnish report of UPSC and to give an opportunity to submit explanation before imposing penalty – Apex court confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal = UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …….APPELLANTS VERSUS R.P.SINGH ……RESPONDENT= 2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41544
Service matter – Non supply of UPSC Advise report before imposing penalty is void – charges framed against delinquent – denied – Enquiry found no charges proved and send the report – Disciplinary Authority not satisfied the report and formed opinion to punish the delinquent – issued show cause notice – explanation submitted – Disciplinary authority send … Continue reading
Promotion by considering the period of service done on adhoc basis = No = whether the applicant has any legal right to be considered for the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical). It is seen he was an ad-hoc appointee for various periods of time from 23.3.1999 till his regularization as Assistant Engineer on 29.4.2005. His orders on 29.4.2005 appointing him as an Assistant Engineer on regular basis also stipulated that he would be on probation for two years. The applicant at the time of such regularization on 29.4.2005 did not challenge the same nor did he make a representation at that time for treating his previous service on ad-hoc basis from 23.3.99 to 29.4.2005 as regular service. He accepted the order as per Annexure-A/1 together with the probation of two years period. Having done this he cannot now come and make a claim that his entire period from 23.3.99 onwards should be regularized so that he can avail of the recruitment rules for being promoted as Executive Engineer on the promotion quota. As per recruitment of Executive Engineer, the applicant is not eligible since 8 years of regular service is required.”= as per the extant rules for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) 8 years regular service as Assistant Engineer is imperative. The Rules do not provide for any relaxation in this behalf. This is clear from the reading of the said rules which provide for appointment to the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical). As per the Recruitment Rules, post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) is a selection post. The mode of recruitment stated in the Rules is as under: “By promotion failing which by transfer on deputation (including short-term contract) and failing both by direct recruitment.” The Recruitment Rules also stipulate eligibility condition in all the three circumstances, namely, promotion, transfer on deputation as well as direct recruitment. In so far as filling up of this post by way of promotion is concerned, following requirements are stipulated for a candidate to be eligible in that category: “PROMOTION: Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) with 8 years regular service in the grade.”- there are three alternate modes of recruitment to the Post, namely, (1) by promotion, failing which (2) by transfer on deputation (including short term contract) and failing both (3) by direct recruitment. No doubt, if some departmental candidate is available and eligible to be considered, the promotion method is to be resorted to in the first instance. However, no departmental candidate was available. Concededly, the respondent had not completed 8 years regular service as Assistant Engineer. In such circumstances only out of sympathy the High Court could not have given the impugned direction. This judicial sympathy resulting into a right in favour of respondent to appoint him contrary to the recruitment rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which are statutory in nature is clearly misplaced and needs to be denounced. Such a direction is clearly unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. As a result, the appeal is allowed restoring the order of the Tribunal dismissing the O.A. filed by the respondent. No costs.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40684 [REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7032/2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 20506 OF 2011) Union of India & Ors. ….Appellants Vs. Shri G.R.Rama Krishna & Anr. …..Respondents … Continue reading
service matter – In the absence of public Advertisement, no posts should be filled from the selected list =there was no advertisement for direct recruitment the select list was quashed.the apex court held that There can be no scintilla of doubt that there was requirement of advertisement for inviting the names. However, as we perceive, the present case projects a totally different picture. = sec. “4. Vacancies to be filled up by persons sponsored by employment exchange. – After the commencement of this Act, all vacancies in the posts in any Government establishment or establishment of any public undertaking, statutory body, Government company or local authority shall be filled up by such persons as may be sponsored by an employment exchange.” – sec.6 Employment exchange to submit list of registrants to appointing authority – The employment exchange shall, on receipt of the requisition under section 5, submit to the appointing authority a list of registrants, other than the registrants who belong to the exempted category, in order of seniority determined on the basis of the length of the period of registration in that employment exchange and in accordance with such principle of rotation as the Director of Employment may prescribe from time to time, and also in conformity with the qualification, age, experience or other requirement, if any, as stated in the requisition.”- The Act provides that the persons are to be selected from the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the State that on the basis of the statutory command names were called for from the employment exchange. As stated earlier, he would clarify that though the names were called for from the employment exchange, the process of selection was not restricted to only the sponsored candidates. In essence, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State that when thousands of candidates had appeared, though not sponsored by the employment exchange, the panel prepared after following due procedure should not have been quashed. – There can be no scintilla of doubt that there was requirement of advertisement for inviting the names. However, as we perceive, the present case projects a totally different picture. The number of posts available was 1446 in the group ‘D’ category. For the said posts more than 57000 candidates competed. On a querry being made, the learned counsel for the State would admit that the vacancies have not been filled up because of pendency of litigation. Regard being had to the special features of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order of the High Court and that of the tribunal and we so do. We further direct the State Government to fill up the posts available from among the select list. We may hasten to clarify that if any one whose name features in the select list has been appointed in any other department or statutory organization or Government company, he cannot claim an appointment in the Department of Irrigation and Waterways. We further direct the respondent-State and its functionaries to adjust respondents 1 and 2 and extend them the benefit of appointment. The appointees cannot claim any seniority with retrospective effect as that might create cavil amongst the appointees in other departments at earlier point of time. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. 13. The appeals are disposed of in above terms. However, there is no order as to costs.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40651 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6748-6749 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6177-6178 of 2012) Buddhadeb Ruidas & ors. etc. etc. … Appellants Versus State of West Bengal and ors. …Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6750-6751 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) … Continue reading
service matter – The appellants were working as Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and appeared in Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the next promotion to the post of Section Officer’s Grade in that service. There are two channels of promotion: one by way of seniority and other fast track in the form of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).- First lot of 141 candidates who were found suitable candidates for the said post whereas in the second lot 43 successful candidates were recommended for appointment. Out of them 6 candidates did not join. The DoP&T thereafter vide its letter dated 20th November 2009 had requisitioned 6 general category vacancies. However, the UPSC recommended names of three candidates from out of reserve list maintained by it. These two appellants who were next in the merit list had secured 305 marks, same as secured by one Rajesh Kumar Yadav who was recommended by the UPSC in the supplementary list candidates. The appellants felt aggrieved by their non-recommendation, thereby denying them the appointment to the post of Section Officer’s Grade. = It is not the case of the UPSC that under no circumstances the names are sent by way of supplementary list, after sending the names of the candidates equal to the vacancies. As per the UPSC itself, names of “repeat/common” candidates are sent and in the present case itself, three names belonging to such category were sent. However, exclusion of the persons like the appellants has clearly resulted in discrimination as one of those three candidates Rajesh Kumar Yadav had also secured 305 marks and once he was appointed to the post in question, the appellants with same marks have been left out even when the vacancies were available. We are, therefore, of the opinion in the facts of the present case, the decision of UPSC in forwarding three names against requisition of DoP&T for six vacancies was inappropriate. We, accordingly, allow the present appeal; set aside the order of the High Court as well as Tribunal and issue Mandamus to the UPSC to forward the names of the next three candidates to the DoP&T for appointment to the post of Section Officer’s Grade. They shall get the seniority from the date when Rajesh Kumar Yadav was appointed to the said post. Their pay shall notionally be fixed, without any arrears of the pay and other allowances.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40630 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6707/2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26967/2011) Manoj Manu & Anr. ….Appellants Vs. Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. … Continue reading
DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY =We have reconsidered the case within permissible limits. The case remained limited to the charge nos. 4 and 6 only as all other charges have lost the significance at one stage or the other, and we have to advert only to the said charges. = The charge sheet dated 23.3.2007 containing the following 8 charges was served upon the appellant under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 for his alleged misconducts during his tenure in BSF, North Bengal, on the following counts :- (i) Indulged in living with a lady by name Smt. Chandrakala, not being his legally wedded wife. (ii) Allowed unauthorized interference by Smt. Chandrakala in the official functioning of North Bengal Frontier causing premature release of four constables from the Quarter Guard. (iii) Complete disregard to the rules and without jurisdiction, reviewed punishment awarded and mitigated the sentence awarded to No. 86161306 Constable Prakash Singh by Frontier Headquarter, BSF South Bengal. (iv) Favoritism and manipulation in the selection of Headmaster, BSF Primary School Kadmatala even though the candidate did not possess essential qualification and was not eligible. (v) Assisted enrolment of a person in BSF from his native district, UP by fraudulent means. (vi) Misuse of official vehicle, arms and ammunition 8Page 9 and BSF personnel during the marriage of his son in Feb. 2006 at his native place in Balia, UP. (vii) Retaining of four BSF Constables for Personal work. (viii) Attachment of Shri Prakash Singh, constable with North Bengal Frontier despite contrary remarks of the PSO, North Bengal Frontier. = It is evident from the record that as per letter dated 4.4.2013 sent by the Government of India to the appellant through the Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh, the proposed punishment is as under: “A penalty of withholding two increments for one year without cumulative effect, be imposed on the appellant as a punishment under Rule 6 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.”The proved charges remained only charge nos.4 and 6 and in both the cases the misconduct seems to be of an administrative nature rather than a misconduct of a serious nature. It was not the case of the department that the appellant had taken the escort vehicle with him. There was only one vehicle which was an official vehicle for his use and charge no.6 stood partly proved. In view thereof, the punishment of compulsory retirement shocks the conscience of the court and by no stretch of imagination can it be held to be proportionate or commensurate to the delinquency committed by and proved against the appellant. -The only punishment which could be held to be commensurate to the delinquency was as proposed by the Government of India to withhold two increments for one year without cumulative effect. It would have been appropriate to remand the case to the disciplinary authority to impose the appropriate punishment. However, considering the chequered history of the case and in view of the fact that the appellant had remained under suspension for 11 months, suffered the order of dismissal for 19 months and would retire after reaching the age of superannuation in December 2013, the facts of the case warrant that this court should substitute the punishment of compulsory retirement to the punishment proposed by the Union of India i.e. withholding of two increments for one year without having cumulative effect. In view thereof, we do not want to proceed with the contempt petitions. The appeals as well as the contempt petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4715-4716 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NOs.22263-22264 of 2012) S.R. Tewari … Appellant Versus Union of India & Anr. …Respondents With Contempt Petition (C) Nos.180-181 of 2013 S.R. Tewari … Petitioner Versus R.K. Singh & Anr. …Contemnors J U D … Continue reading
non-consideration of his case for promotion= The High Court, by impugned order dated 27.04.2010, allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the appellants herein to issue appropriate order in favour of the respondent herein for promotion with all consequential benefits. f) Challenging the said order, the Union of India has filed this appeal by way of special leave. It is further seen that up to 21.04.2003, the date on which the respondent’s batch mates were promoted to IRAS, neither any criminal proceedings was initiated against him nor any departmental enquiry was initiated, nor any charge sheet was served upon him and nor he was placed under suspension. We have carefully gone through the factual position and the ultimate ratio laid down by this Court in R.S. Sharma’s case (surpa). Even though in the said decision, this Court has distinguished the decision in Jankiraman’s case (supra) and held that the same is not applicable to its case, in the light of the conditions mentioned in para 2 as well as para 7 of the office memorandum dated 14.09.1992 and of the categorical finding that none of the conditions mentioned therein has been fulfilled, we are of the view that the decision in R.S. Sharma’s case (supra) is not helpful to the case of the appellant. In the light of the above discussion and in view of factual position as highlighted in the earlier paras, we hold that the ratio laid down in Jankiraman’s case (supra) are fully applicable to the case on hand, hence we are in agreement with the ultimate decision of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Union of India fails and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2537 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1933 of 2011) The Union of India & Ors. …. Appellant(s) Versus Anil Kumar Sarkar …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P. Sathasivam, J. 1) Delay condoned. 2) Leave … Continue reading
validity of notification – The notification prescribing educational qualification of doctorate degree or equivalent with 55% marks at the Master’s Degree Level examination or 12 years teaching experience of degree classes in a college affiliated to any university or equivalent is upheld as validly prescribing the qualifications for filling the post by direct recruitment.
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7570 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.3568/2006] Chandigarh Administration through the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh … Appellant Vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T R.V.RAVEENDRAN,J. Leave granted. 2. There … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 