2011 Supreme(SC) 420

2011 (4) Supreme 546
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
J.S. Yadav — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3299 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16427 of 2009)
Decided on : 18-4-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
Amendments do not operate retrospectively unless suggested expressly or by necessary implication.
No order can be passed behind the back of any person.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of Statutes – Ordinary and natural meaning cannot be controlled by supposed intention of the Legislature – Language of a statutory provision cannot be stretched to bring it in accord with the supposed legislative intent underlying it. (Para 9)

        (b) Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – Section 21 r/w Article 236(a), Constitution of India, section 3(17), General Clauses Act, 1897 and Rule 4 of the Rules, 1975 – Experience of Additional District Judge could not be taken into consideration as that of a District Judge for appointment as Member of the Commission. (Para 9)

        (c) Service Law – Cadre – A cadre generally denotes strength of a service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit including two or more different grades; as also temporary, supernumerary and shadow posts created in different grades – The expressions “cadre”, “posts” and “service” cannot be equated with each other – Thus the post of District Judge and Additional District Judge in the State of U.P. is neither inter-changeable nor inter-transferable. (Para 10)

        (2008) 9 SCC 242; AIR 2009 SC 618 – Relied upon

        (d) Constitution of India – Article 236(a) – Relates to the procedure of appointment on the post of the District Judge and other Civil Judicial posts inferior to the post of District Judge – That does not mean that the post of District Judge and Additional District Judge is inter-changeable or inter-transferable. (Para 11)

        AIR 1992 SC 165 – Relied upon

        (e) Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – Section 26 – Having been appointment being fully eligible and competent and having worked as Member of the Commission for 2 years, the appellant could not be declared to cease to hold the post merely because of the amendment. (Para 14)

        AIR 1987 SC 1463 – Relied upon

        (f) Interpretation of statutes – Amendment operates prospectively unless suggesting its retrospective operation expressly or by necessary implication. (Para 14)

        AIR 1987 SC 1463 – Relied upon

        (g) Service Law – Service conditions – Tenure – ‘Terms of service’ includes tenure of service – A person appointed for a fixed period is entitled to continue till the expiry of the tenure – He cannot be superannuated during the tenure. (Paras 14 and 17)

        AIR 1987 SC 1463; AIR 1992 SC 1872; AIR 1995 SC 768; (2008) 5 SCC 1 – Relied upon

        (h) Words and phrases – Justified in law – An act is “justified by law” if it is warranted, validated and made blameless by law – A member could be removed only on the grounds mentioned in Section 23 of the 1993 Act. (Para 19)

        AIR 1980 SC 605 – Relied upon

        (i) Words and phrases – Vested and vested interest – “Vested right” is a right independent of any contingency – Such a right can arise from a contract, statute or by operation of law – A vested right can be taken away only if the law specifically or by necessary implication provide for such a course. (Paras 22 and 29)

        AIR 1996 SC 1936; (2004) 1 SCC 663; AIR 1967 SC 1889; AIR 1973 SC 1146; AIR 1975 SC 1116; (1984) 3 SCC 281; AIR 1984 SC 161; (1994) 5 SCC 450; AIR 1987 SC 1676; AIR 1955 SC 84; AIR 1980 SC 77; AIR 1987 SC 1217; AIR 2004 SC 1887; AIR 2008 SC 2276; AIR 2008 SC 739; AIR 1997 SC 3828 – Relied upon

        (j) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order I, rule 9 – Impleadment of a necessary party is mandatory – Non-joinder of necessary party, would disentitle the plaintiff to reliefs sought for – If an unsuccessful candidate challenges the selection process, he is bound to implead at least some of the successful candidates in representative capacity. (Para 32)

        AIR 1985 SC 167; 1995 (supp) 1 SCC 179; (2009) 1 SCC 768; (2010) 10 SCC 408; AIR 2010 SC 2613 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        1. The appellant while working as a Principal Secretary and Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., was appointed as a Member of the U.P. State Human Rights Commission on 29.6.2006 for a period of five years i.e. till 30.6.2011. The appellant joined on the said post on 1.7.2006.

        2. After completion of the tenure by the then Chairperson of the Commission and other Members in October 2007, the appellant remained the lone working Member of the Commission.

        3. The State of U.P. issued Notification dated 28.5.2008 to the effect that appellant ceased to hold the office as a Member of the Commission.

        4. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

       Finding of the Court:

        Notification dated 28.5.2008 is patently illegal.

       Result : Appeal partly allowed.