1999 Supreme(SC) 144

1999(1) Supreme 355
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Rajendra & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5476-83 of 1998
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5484-5494 of 1998
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 540 of 1998
Decided on 5-2-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : V.A. Mohta, Sr. Advocate, Kailash Vasdev, Advo­cate.
For the Appellant/Petitioner in C.A. Nos. 5484-94/98 and W.P. No. 540/98 : Surya Kant, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Aruneshwar Gupta and S.N. Rath, Advocates.

Important Point
When the posts tempo­rarily created for fulfilling the needs of a particular pro­ject or scheme limited in its duration come to an end on account of the need for the project itself having come to an end either because the project was fulfilled or had to be abandoned wholly or partially for want of funds, the employer cannot by a writ of mandamus be directed to continue employing such employees as have been dislodged because such a direction would amount to requisition for creation of posts though not required by the employer and finding such posts though the employer did not have the funds available for the purpose.

Headnote:Service Law-Employment under District Rural Development Agen­cies Scheme (DRDA)-Termi­nation of Class III and Class IV posts-Validity of-Rajasthan Government abolishing 273 Class III and Class IV posts on basis of re­commendation of committee’s report on availability of funds for scheme-Challenge to termination order-Plea that they were in fact employee’s of State Government and even if need for such employment had come to an end with DRDA Societies of different dis­tricts they could be regularised and absorbed and accommodated by Govt. in other departments-Single Judge quashing order on reasoning DRDA Societies terminated employment without application of mind on basis of decision of Govt.-Direction to absorption in various other departments - Division Bench set aside decision-Whether correct-Posts temporarily created for fulfilling needs of particular project or scheme-Project came to an end or abandoned for want of fund-Employer cannot be directed to continue employing such employees-Such direction would amount to requisition for creation of posts though not required by employees-Order of Division Bench upheld.

       Held : When the posts tempo­rarily created for fulfilling the needs of a particular project or scheme limited in its duration come to an end on account of the need for the project itself having come to an end either because the project was fulfilled or had to be abandoned wholly or partially for want of funds, the employer cannot by a writ of mandamus be directed to continue employing such employees as have been dislodged because such a direction would amount to requisition for creation of posts though not required by the employer and finding such posts though the employer did not have the funds available for the purpose. (Para 13)

       The decision taken by the respondent-State to abolish the posts was a bona fide decision taken after due applica­tion of mind by appointing an Expert Commitees which went deep into all relevant considerations and made re­commendations in the interest of rationalization. The decision is based on administrative and finan­cial considerations. There is nothing wrong in the societies having acted on the policy decision of the State Government. Really speaking there was hardly anything left to be done by the DRDA societies at their own end. Inasmuch as the societies did not have any funds of their own independent of those made available by the State Government how could the societies have continued with the posts and the incumbents thereon though they were left with no means to pay salaries attaching with the posts. (Para 13)

       An attempt was made by the petitioners to bring in some new mate­rial on record to raise a plea that a few years after the abolition of the posts, the res­pondents have opened new avenues of employment where against the peti­tioners could be accommodated. The res­pondents have disputed such stand taken on behalf of the petitioners. We find it difficult to entertain such plea taken at this stage and sustain the same when no reliable material has been placed before us to uphold such plea of the petitioners. In fact a similar attempt was made before the Division Bench also by the petitioners moving an applica­tion for review of the judgment of the Division Bench but the review, petition was dismissed by the Division Bench forming an opinion that a new plea was not open for consideration in review jurisdiction of the court and if at all there was any substance in such plea of the peti­tioners then it provided a new cause of action enabling the petition­ers to file a fresh petition. In our opinion, the Division Bench was right in taking the view which it did. From the affidavit filed on behalf of State of Rajasthan and the figures placed before us in the form of a tabular statement we are satisfied that the State has already made effort at accommodating dislodged employees of one DRDA in other DRDAs as far as possible. There are no transferees/deputationists from Government occupying posts meant for LDCs or Class-IV in DRDAs and therefore the peti­tioners’ plea that they may be accommodated by repatriating such governmental employees has no merit and no foundation. (Para 14)

       Held consequently : Appeals and writ petition are dismissed subject to the observation that in the event of any additional posts being creat­ed in future due to some new scheme/programmes being introduced, petitioners/appellants may be given preference according to their seniority subject to eligibility after of age in view of the service so far rendered by each one of them in the DRDAs. (Para 16)