Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. GOKHALE, J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
BHAJAN SINGH - Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. - Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7706 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30361/2012)
Decided on : August 27, 2013
(B) Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam (The Post of the Managing Director) Rules, 2011, Rule 5(2) — Merit — Assessment of — On the basis of (i) integrity of the officer — (ii) leadership qualities — (iii) capability to take quick decision — (iv) technical knowledge of the subject — (v) special achievements/contribution and capacity to execute the work easily and like qualities — The rule clearly states that all these facts are to be brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Committee has to consider all the material before deciding whether the officer was suitable for promotion. (Paras 5, 18)
(C) Service Matter — Promotion — An employee has no right to promotion — He has only a right to be considered for promotion — The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances — To qualify for promotion the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record — That is the minimum expected to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interest — And once a departmental proceeding is pending, the claim of the employee concerned for promotion will have to be kept in a sealed cover — In the present case, the Selection Committee was not apprised of the three charge sheets against the respondent no. 4 — This was clearly in breach of Rule 5 — And the High Court had erred in ignoring this aspect — In the circumstances, appeal was allowed. (Paras 16, 20, 21)
JUDGMENT
H.L. Gokhale, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 9.8.2012 rendered by a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court dismissing Writ Petition (S/B) No.153 of 2012. That writ petition was filed by the appellant herein seeking to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 herein to the post of Managing Director of the Uttarakhand Peyjal Sanshadhan Vikas Avam Nirman Nigam (“Nigam” for short). There were various prayers in the writ petition. Prayer (A) was to call for the record of the selection proceedings and recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted on 2.5.2012 by the Government of Uttarakhand for selection to the post of Managing Director and after examining the legality and validity of selection process, recommendations to quash these recommendations. Prayer (B) challenged repatriation of the appellant to the post of Chief Engineer which was his substantive post from his officiating position of Managing Director. Prayer (C) essentially sought consideration of the appellant for the post of Managing Director, if found fit for the said post.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are this wise - The appellant as well as respondent No.4 both joined as Assistant Engineers in the Respondent No.2 Nigam. The appellant joined sometimes in 1984 whereas respondent No.4 joined in 1977. Over the years, they have risen in rank and the appellant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, became Superintending Engineer on 4.7.2002 whereas respondent No.4 came to that position on 2.7.2008. Subsequently the appellant became Chief Engineer on 8.2.2005 which post he is presently continuing to occupy. As far as respondent No.4 is concerned, he came in that position on 20.1.2011. He could become Managing Director on 3.5.2012 pursuant to the Departmental Promotion Committee’s decision. The appellant was officiating as the Managing Director at the relevant time, he was amongst the officers who were considered for promotion and it is his case that he deserved to be selected and not the respondent No.4.
4. The challenge to the appointment of respondent No.4 is two-fold. Firstly that under the relevant rules regarding the consideration for promotion to the post of Managing Director, minimum 8 years of service as Chief Engineer is required, which respondent No.4 did not have. It is also pointed out that respondent No.4 came in the position of Superintending Engineer much after the appellant became Chief Engineer. This being the position, the submission is that respondent No.4 was not eligible for being considered for the post of Managing Director.
5. Be that as it may, the second challenge to the appointment of respondent No.4 was to the manner and merits of the selection of respondent No.4 for the post of Managing Director and in our view, this is a much more basic objection which we must look into. There are rules framed for the appointment to the post of Managing Director known as the Uttarakhand Peyjal Sanshadhan Vikas Avam Nirman Nigam (The Post of the Managing Director) Rules, 2011. They are framed under Section 96 read with sub-section (2-A) of Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. Rule 3 of these rules provides that the selection to the post of Managing Director shall be made through a Selection Committee which will comprise of 5 persons, namely:
a) Chief Secretary to the State Government
b) Principal Secretary/Secretary to the State Government in the Water Supply Department
c) Principal Secretary to the State Government in the Public Enterprises Department
d) Principal Secretary/Secretary to the State Government in the Personnel Department
e) An expert nominated by the Chief Secretary to the State Government.
6. These Rules also provide for an officer belonging to the Scheduled Castes or other backward classes of citizens, nominated by the Chief Secretary to be on the Committee if the officers referred to in clauses
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
