Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
SHRIPALBHATI AND OTHERS – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 802 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 9276 OF 2017)
Decided on : 29-01-2020
(A) Service Law – Appointment – Challenge to appointment of respondent no. 4 on post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and his subsequent absorption – Appellants are presently posted as Assistant Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA – Regulation 16 (i) (c) clearly provides that recruitment to any post under the Authority can be made by deputation – Regulation 16 as it stands holds field with regard to source of recruitment in the Authority – Power of appointment of officers and employees lies with Authority subject to such control and restrictions as may be determined by general or special orders of State Government – Once deputation as a source of recruitment is available under Rules of Recruitment, there is no impediment in assuming power of absorption of a deputationist with Authority by necessary intendment or implication, under Act of 1976 and 1981 Regulations framed thereunder – Appointment of respondent no. 4 in NOIDA on deputation and his subsequent absorption under orders of State Government cannot be faulted with or can be held to be in violation of 1981 Regulations – Besides, at the time of appointment of respondent no. 4 in 2014, and his subsequent absorption in 2015, both appellants were not eligible for promotion to post of Project Engineer for want of requisite 8 years’ experience as Assistant Project Engineer – Challenge made by appellants to appointment and absorption of respondent no. 4 is not tenable and they have no locus standi in the matter – Unless injury is suffered personally a person cannot be said to be aggrieved and has no locus standi – Appeal dismissed. [New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations, 1981 – Regulation 16; U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 – Section 5] (Paras 13, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27)
(B) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Harmonious Construction – A provision is required to be read in whole and not in part and in isolation to other parts of the provision – Entire provision is required to be read out harmoniously – Any particular portion of provision cannot be read in isolation in a manner so as to render other part of same provision totally redundant. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been preferred against judgment of High Court dated 08.02.2017 dismissing Writ Petition filed by appellants laying a challenge to the appointment of respondent no. 4 on post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and his subsequent absorption. Core issue which arises for our consideration is whether recruitment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation and his subsequent absorption on the said post is permissible under NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981.
Findings of the Court:
Absorption of respondent no. 4 in NOIDA he was relieved from his parent department and his lien with parent department ceased.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Krishna Murari. J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court [High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench] dated 08.02.2017 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants laying a challenge to the appointment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'NOIDA') and his subsequent absorption.
3. The appellants are presently posted as Assistant Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA.
4. On a request made by respondent no. 4, who was employed as a Sub-Divisional Officer with U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., seeking appointment on a vacant post of Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA, State Government, vide letter dated 13.02.2014 required the NOIDA to appoint him on the said post on deputation for a period of three years. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter, an appointment order dated 19.02.2014 was issued by NOIDA and respondent no 4 was permitted to join the said post. Subsequently vide letter dated 16.02.2015, respondent no. 2 made a recommendation to respondent no. 1 for absorption of respondent no. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition praying, inter-alia, for:-
(i) Quashing the recommendation letter dated 16.02.2015 for absorption,
(ii) Quashing letter dated 19.02.2014 appointing respondent no 4 on deputation on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical),
(iii) Commanding the respondents to fill up the post of Project Engineer in accordance with Service Rules and to restrain respondent no. 4 from functioning as Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA.
5. During the pendency of Writ Petition before the High Court, respondent no. 4 was absorbed on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) vide order dated 07.05.2015, issued by the respondent no.1. This order was challenged in the Writ Petition by way of an amendment application which was allowed by the High Court.
6. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.02.2017, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
7. The core issue which arises for our consideration is whether the recruitment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation and his subsequent absorption on the said post is permissible under NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981.
8. Incidentally another issue which arises is whether the appellants are eligible for being promoted to the post on which respondent no. 4 has been appointed and whether the appellant's right of promotion gets eclipsed by absorption of respondent no. 4 and in case the appellants were not found eligible for promotion whether any challenge to appointment or absorption of respondent no. 4 would be maintainable at their behest.
9. NOIDA was constituted by the State Government by means of notification issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1976') enacted by the State legislature to provide for constitution of an authority for development of certain areas in the State, into Industrial and Urban Township.
10. Section 5 of the Act of 1976 vests with the Authority the power to appoint officers/employees for performance of its functions including determining their grades and designations subject to control/restrictions of the State Government through general/special orders. Section 19 of the Act of 1976 vests with the Authority the power to make regulations with the previous approval of the State Government.
11. In exercise of powers vested under Section 19 of the Act of 1976, NOIDA has framed the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Regulations') to govern the conditions of service of conditions of its employees. Regulation 16 of 1981 Regulations provides for sources of recruitment to all posts. The same reads as under :-
" Section 16- Sources of Recruitment
16. (1) Recruitment to any post u
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
