SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
State of U.P. And 8 Ors - Appellants
Versus
Parmeshwari Dayal And 14 Ors - Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. - 650 OF 2018.
Decided On : 27-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : Pankaj Rai, B.B.Paul,Brij Bhushan Paul.
For the Respondent: Krishna Mohan Asthana, Chandra Prakash Tiwari, Mahesh Kumar, Prabhakar Awasthi, R.S. Pandey, Ruksana.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Employment - Selection process for Fishermen - Appeal against single judge's order allowing reinstatement of candidates dismissed without due process. The selection process was marred by numerous irregularities and complaints were ultimately unsubstantiated. The learned single judge erred in overlooking material facts, leading to reinstatement based on incomplete inquiries. (Paras 1-68)

(B) Judicial Review - Writ jurisdiction - The Court must observe its limits within fact-finding, especially in challenges against administrative actions. Any illegalities necessitating cancellation of selection do not require individual responses from all candidates affected. (Paras 56-67)

Facts of the case:
The respondents were selected through a flawed process wherein appointment letters were issued hurriedly amid complaints of illegalities. The selection was canceled based on an inquiry report that suggested serious gaps in transparency and adherence to protocols. (Paras 1-22)

Findings of Court:
The cancellation of the selections was found justified due to the widespread malpractices evident in the process. The single judge's ruling was invalid as it ignored substantial evidence pointing towards irregularities, and failed to reclaim a proper fact-finding role. (Paras 55-67)

Issues: The principal issues included whether the original selection process was legitimate and compliant with administrative rules, and the extent of the learned single judge's proper exercise of jurisdiction. (Paras 12-16)

Ratio Decidendi: The overarching principle established is the necessity for fairness and transparency in public selection processes; significant deviations undermine the integrity of such processes, justifying cancellation even in the absence of individual complaints. (Paras 53-59)

Result: Appeal allowed; single judge's order set aside; writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. intra-court appeal filed against a single judge's order. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. selection process for fisherman posts with significant complaints. (Para 8 , 9 , 13)
3. importance of transparency and fairness in public selections. (Para 14 , 32 , 54)
4. judicial review limits and principles of legality. (Para 61 , 62 , 66)
5. final dismissal of the writ petition without reversing prior salary. (Para 68 , 69)

JUDGMENT

Heard Shri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Shri Piyush Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents-appellants and Shri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents.

2. The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the respondents-appellants/State, arising from the order of the learned single judge dated 01.12.2017, passed in Writ-A No. 16890 of 2016 (Parmeshwari Dayal and 14 others v. State of U.P. and 8 others). By that order, the learned single judge has allowed that writ petition filed by 15 petitioners-respondents and quashed the order dated 17.03.2016, passed by the Principal Secretary, Matsya Utpadan Anubhag; order dated 18.3.2016 passed by the Director of Fisheries and, order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Director Fisheries, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. Consequently, the petitioners (before the learned single judge), have been directed to be reinstated in service on the post of Fisherman/"Machua", together with all consequential benefits, except 50% backwages.

3. In the present intra-court appeal, by a detailed order dated 16.7.2018, a co-ordinate bench of this Court stayed, until further order, the operation and effect of the judgement under appeal. Pleadings have been exchanged. The matter has thus been heard.

4. On 15.1.2014, the Director of Fisheries, Uttar Pradesh called upon all Deputy Directors to initiate steps to fill up Group-D posts "Machhua"/Fisherman. These included 17 posts of Fisherman at Chitrakoot Dham, Division. Consequently, publication dated 16.1.2014 was issued inviting applications to fill up 17 posts of Fisherman. 9 of those posts were left open for General Category whereas 4 posts each were reserved for Scheduled Castes and OBCs. No post was reserved for Scheduled Tribes. By way of horizontal reservation, 3 posts were reserved for women and one post each was reserved for ex-serviceman and dependents of freedom fighters. Age qualification, between 18-40 years, was provided. As to essential qualifications, experience at (i) Swimming, Diving, lifesaving; (ii) Manufacture of fishing implements and accessories; (iii) Net making and Net preservation; (iv) Fish handling, dressing, icing; (v) Method of transporting of live fish; (vi) Management of fish ponds, stocking, feeding and rearing of live fish; (vii) Angling with rods, hand lines, and night lines; and (viii) Boat repairs, rowing, selling etc., were prescribed. Certain additional qualifications were also advertised. The selection was to be made in accordance with the U.P. Department of Fisheries Group-D (Technical) Services Rules, 1982, as amended in 1993, hereinafter referred to as the Rules.

5. Consequent to the above advertisement, a Selection Committee was constituted by the Deputy Director Fisheries, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, Dr. R.K. Gaur on 14.7.2000. The Additional City Magistrate, Jhansi was nominated to the Committee by the Chief Development Officer in his capacity as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste.

6. Against 17 posts advertised at Chitrakoot Dham, Division, 3016 candidates submitted their applications. Of that, 1060 applications were rejected, upon scrutiny. The remaining 1956 applications were found in order. Those candidates were called for the test. To conduct the selection test, the Selection Committee at its meeting held on 9.7.2014, resolved to hold a two-stage test. At first, it was resolved to conduct the test over a period of 7 days (excluding the official holiday for the festival Eid ul Fitr), calling at least 200 candida

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top