Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJENDRA MENON, V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
S.M. Tangri – Petitioner
Versus
Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited and Another – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 7728 of 2015 and CM Nos. 15151 of 2015, 5476 of 2017
Decided On : 22-10-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Chandra Prakash.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vinay Sabharwal.
The Court's reluctance to unsettle a settled position and exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in exceptional circumstances.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Absorption Challenge - Recruitment and Promotion Regulations - OM dated June 20, 2007 - Supreme Court judgment - Union of India and Anr. vs. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the absorption of respondent No. 4 as Assistant Manager (HR) in respondent No. 1, alleging false statement and fraudulent misrepresentation. The respondent No. 1 justifies the absorption based on the respondent No. 4's expertise and outstanding performance in a different role.
Finding of the Court:
The Court finds that the respondent No. 4's absorption was in public interest and that upsetting the settled position would have drastic consequences for the respondent No. 4. The petitioner's delay in challenging the absorption and the exceptional circumstances of the case lead the Court to dismiss the writ petition.
Issues: Challenge to respondent No. 4's absorption based on alleged false statement and fraudulent misrepresentation, and the respondent No. 1's justification of the absorption in public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court declines to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to unsettle a settled position, considering the exceptional circumstances and the potential drastic consequences for the respondent No. 4.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed with no costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“In view of the facts and submissions made herein above it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to:
(i) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Quo-Warranto or any other order or direction or declaration thereby holding the absorption of the respondent No. 4 Shri P.N. Sharma, as Assistant Manager (HR) with respondent No. 1, as null and void.
(ii) Consequently, quash the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Assistant Manager (HR).
(iii) Issue appropriate directions to the respondent Nos. 2 to hold an enquiry against the conduct of respondent No. 5 for processing the case of the respondent No. 4 contrary to the rules.
(iv) Award cost of the writ petition against the respondent.
(v) May also pass any further order or orders has to deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.”
2. In substance, the petitioner is challenging the absorption of the respondent No. 4 as Assistant Manager (HR) with the respondent No. 1. It is the case of the petitioner and contended by his counsel that the respondent No. 4 joined the Indraprastha Generation Company Ltd. (respondent No. 1) on January 28, 2008 on deputation. At the time of joining on deputation, the respondent No. 4 was MSc. LLB and MBA and has secured his permanent absorption in the company by making false statement/fraudulent misrepresentation before the Board of Directors of the Company in connivance with the respondent No. 5.
3. According to him, the respondent No. 4 did not have the minimum qualification nor he had undergone a written test prescribed in the Recruitment regulations for the post of Assistant Manager (HR). He states that in terms of OM dated June 20, 2007 the permanent absorption has to be made subject to a person fulfilling the requirement under the Recruitment and Promotion regulations for the particular post.
4. He has drawn our attention to the Recruitment and Promotion regulation for the post of Assistant Manager (HR) which stipulates the method of recruitment to be 25% by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment. Short term contract in exceptional cases. According to him, even the absorption has been made giving the relaxation of the prescribed qualification and age which is also impermissible.
5. He has also drawn our attention to the note sheets procured by him through the process of RTI to contend that the CMD of the Company has in unequivocal terms stated that the case of the respondent No. 4 cannot be processed for absorption. Despite such noting, in the next Board meeting, it was decided that the respondent No. 4, be permanently absorbed on the post of Assistant Manager (HR) against the direct recruitment quota in respondent No. 1 Company, in relaxation to prescribed qualification and age.
6. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. vs. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 to contend that no person can be given any benefit, if the same is impermissible under the Rules.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 states that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not bona fide, inasmuch as the respondent No. 4 was the officer involved in a disciplinary action taken against the petitioner which culminated in the penalty of “censure” imposed on the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner is settling scores against the respondent No. 4, who in discharge of his official duties was involved in a disciplinary action against the petitioner.
8. That apart, he states that the respondent No. 4 was working as a Gazetted Officer in the office of Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi and had applied for deputation on the post of Assistant Manager (Vigilance) in the respondent no. 1 in the year 2007. He was called for interview by a high-powered interview panel of the resp
