Back
2003 Supreme(All) 2707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.
PUSHPAK JYOTI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 52499 Of 2002
Decided On : 12/11/2003
Ashok Khare, B.N.SINGH, S.K.Shukla, Sadhna Upadhyay, SANT SARAN UPADHYAY
The principles laid down in the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 for the allocation of employees were not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
The Court held that the final allocation of U.P. Government employees to the successor State of Uttaranchal was valid and constitutional. The Court found that the principles laid down in the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 for the allocation of employees were not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the Central Government had not delegated any legislative function to the State Advisory Committee and that the Committee's decisions were purely administrative and not quasi-judicial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were U.P. Government employees, challenged the validity of the U.P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000, which resulted in the creation of the State of Uttaranchal and the allocation of U.P. Government employees to the new State.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the final allocation of U.P. Government employees to the successor State of Uttaranchal was valid and constitutional. The Court found that the principles laid down in the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 for the allocation of employees were not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the Central Government had not delegated any legislative function to the State Advisory Committee and that the Committee's decisions were purely administrative and not quasi-judicial.
Issues: 1. Whether the final allocation of U.P. Government employees to the successor State of Uttaranchal was valid and constitutional? 2. Whether the principles laid down in the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 for the allocation of employees were arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Central Government had delegated any legislative function to the State Advisory Committee? 4. Whether the State Advisory Committee's decisions were purely administrative or quasi-judicial?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the final allocation of U.P. Government employees to the successor State of Uttaranchal was valid and constitutional because: a. The principles laid down in the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 for the allocation of employees were not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. b. The Central Government had not delegated any legislative function to the State Advisory Committee. c. The State Advisory Committee's decisions were purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. 2. The Court found that the principles laid down in the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 for the allocation of employees were not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution because: a. The principles were based on objective criteria designed to avoid any complaint of pick and choose. b. The principles were framed by senior, experienced administrators and hence the Court should defer to their opinion. c. There was no evidence that the principles had not been approved by the Central Government.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions and held that the final allocation of U.P. Government employees to the successor State of Uttaranchal was valid and constitutional.
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions and the bunch of connected writ petitions have challenged the validity of the petitioners allocation to the State of Uttaranchal consequent upon the creation of the State of uttaranchal by the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000. All these petitions are being disposed off by a common judgment.
( 2 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these connected petitions. We have also heard Sri B. N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Government.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 52499 of 2002 was selected as an Officer in the Provincial police Service in 1987 Batch. After completing his training he joined the service on 3. 3. 1990 and was initially posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Rampur. Presently he is posted as additional Superintendent of Police, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
( 4 ) THE U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 was enacted by Parliament% which the State of U. P. was bifurcated and a new State called uttaranchal1 Was created. Since a new State was being created obviously some U. P. Government employees had to be allocated to the State of uttaranchal.
( 5 ) THE relevant provision in the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 with which we are concerned in these petitions are Sections 73, 75, 76 and 77 of the Act. These provisions are as follows :-" 73. Provisions relating to All India Services.-- (1) Every persons who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the state of Uttar Pradesh unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttaranchal: provided that every direction under this sub-section issued after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day shall be issued with the consultation of the Governments of the successor States. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in Sub-section (1)shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of Sub-section (2) to a successor state shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor state from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government.
75. Provisions as to continuance of Officers in same post.-- (1) Every person who, immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of or any other Appropriate Authority in that successor State : provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Competent Authority, on and from the appointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office.
76. Advisory Committees.-- (1) Central Government may, by order, establish one or more advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard to- (a) the discharge of any of its functions under this part and (b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of this part and the proper consideration of any representations made by such persons.
77. Power of Central Government to give directio
