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

2022 Supreme(UK) 344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Vinod Kumar Lohumi - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2373 of 2015
Decided On : 22-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Mehra, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mrs. Indu Sharma, Brief Holder, Mr. N.S. Pundir, Mr. A.S. Rawat, Senior Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the Rules and Regulations framed under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, particularly regarding the promotion process and the filling of promotional posts. The judgment emphasizes the need to follow the prescribed procedures and avoid actions that contravene the established rules.

Headnote:

U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam - Recruitment Rules - Section 26-A, 26-G, 26-X - The court discussed the legislative impact of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. It highlighted the provisions related to the constitution of a Board, exercise of control, and service conditions of employees. The court emphasized the exclusive powers of superintendence vested with the Director of the Mandi Samiti and the modalities governing the service conditions of employees.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Mandi Supervisor, sought promotion as Secretary Grade-III under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. He claimed that he was eligible for promotion in 1992 but was not considered due to non-availability of vacancies. He further contested the belated promotion and the appointment of another candidate as Secretary Grade-II, which was a 100% promotional post.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointment of the other candidate as Secretary Grade-II, a 100% promotional post, through direct recruitment was in contravention of the Rules of 1984. The court also noted that the petitioner's promotion was delayed and his eligibility for promotion as Secretary Grade-II was prejudiced due to the appointment of the other candidate.

Issues: The issues involved the legality of the appointment of the other candidate as Secretary Grade-II through direct recruitment, the delay in the petitioner's promotion, and the impact of the appointment on the petitioner's eligibility for promotion.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of the other candidate as Secretary Grade-II through direct recruitment was inconsistent with the Rules of 1984 and prejudiced the petitioner's promotion rights. The court also directed the reconsideration of the petitioner's claim for promotion as Secretary Grade-III from an earlier date and clarified that the appointment of the other candidate would not impede the petitioner's eligibility for promotion as Secretary Grade-II.

Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition, declared the appointment of the other candidate as Secretary Grade-II through direct recruitment as illegal, and directed the reconsideration of the petitioner's promotion claim. The court clarified that the appointment of the other candidate would not hinder the petitioner's eligibility for promotion as Secretary Grade-II.

JUDGEMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Before this Court proceeds to sculpturize this judgment, this Court is of the view, that few backdrop of the legislative impact of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations framed thereunder are necessarily required to be considered, before considering the respective cases of the parties, to the proceedings of the present Writ Petition.

2. In the undivided State of U.P., the State had then formulated an Act called as U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, as it was notified to be enforced by the State; vide its notification, which was issued as back as on 4th August, 1964.

3. The said Act under Section 26-A, prescribes the modalities of exercise of control over the functioning of the respective Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, and for the aforesaid purpose, the external controls are regulated as per the provisions contained under Chapter V of the Act, and basically, under Section 26-A of the Act, it contemplates providing of a constitution of a Board, by constituting the same by a gazette notification of the State, giving it as to be a status of body corporate and an apex body having perpetual succession, to deal with all the matters which are related to the provisions of the Act of 1964. What we would be more concerned herein is, that under Section 26-G of the said Act, the exclusive powers of superintendence over the functioning of the Board and the general control, is a power, which has been exclusively vested with the Director of the Mandi Samiti as per law, as it has been defined under Sub-section (h) of the Section 2 of the Act.

4. Under Section 26-X of the Adhiniyam of 1964, which would be the basic provisions, with which, we would be more concerned, its a power, which has been exclusively vested with Board thus constituted under Section 26-A, to be read as to be a Board defined under Section 2 (a-1). It provides for, that the Board may with the previous approval of the State Government, may make Regulations in relation to the exercise of its general administrative control over the affairs of the Board, and the functioning of its employees. Accordingly, in the exercise of the powers which are to be read with in consonance with Section 26-A and Section 26-X, the Board has formulated the Service Rules, which would be governing the service conditions of the employees working with the Mandi Samiti, by notifying the same in the official gazette, in the exercise of its powers under Section 26-A to be read Section 26-X, called as U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.

5. The Rules, thus notified under Section 26-X, it provides for the various modalities which would be governing the service conditions of the employee of the Mandi, and particularly, the aspect, which we would be concerned with in the instant Writ Petition, would be the procedure for direct and promotional recruitment, as contemplated under Part-III of the Rules of 1964, the applicability of which, is not a fact, which is disputed by either of the parties to the proceedings of the present Writ Petition.

6. Particularly, for the purposes of adjudication of this case, a reference to Regulation 13 of the U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Centralized) Service Regulation of 1984, is specifically required a mention to be dealt with, which provides for the provisions of source of the recruitment, and the proportions from different sources is given thereof, which has been spilited over for the purposes of filing up, the available post of different categories of posts contained in the Schedule provided under Rule 13, as to what percentage, and upto what extent the same could be filled in by way of promotion or direct recruitment, as the case may be. Rule 13 is extracted hereunder :-

    13. Quota. – (1) Subject to the provision of subrule (2) recruitment to various categories of posts in the cadres of the service shall be made from t

        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