Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.72 OF 2003
THE ADMINISTRATOR, RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPN. .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJNISH KUMAR & ORS. ......RESPONDENTS
JUDGEMENT
This appeal is directed against order dated 18.01.2002
passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in CWJC
No.3015/98(R), whereby the draft scheme presented by the
Administrator of Ranchi Municipal Corporation for recruitment of
class-III and class-IV employees was approved by the High Court
with certain modifications.
Respondent No. 1, Mr. Rajnish Kumar filed a petition in the
name of public interest litigation questioning the functioning of
appellant, Ranchi Municipal Corporation and its financial
accountability. During the pendency of the writ petition, the
Division Bench of the High Court passed an order dated 12.8.1999
whereby the appellant was restrained from making appointment on
any post. As a consequence, no recruitment could be made against
1333 sanctioned class-III and class-IV posts.
Since the appellant was facing acute shortage of staff, an
application was filed in the High Court for vacating the interim
order. After considering the grievance made in the application,
2
the Division Bench of the High Court passed order dated
27.9.2001, which reads as under:
“In this application, the Ranchi Municipal
Corporation has prayed for a suitable modification
in the order dated 12.8.1999 passed by a Division
Bench of this court whereby the corporation and
its officials were restrained from making any
appointment on any post till further orders from
this court.
In this application (Flag 'Z') it is contended by
the corporation that there are altogether 1333
sanctioned class III and class IV posts in the
Ranchi Municipal Corporation and that at present
as many as 363 class IV posts are lying vacant.
Various reasons and grounds including those
relating to the cleaning operations, removing
garbage etc. have been given in the application
seeking the court's permission to make
appointments on these posts.
We have carefully read the writ application. We
have gone through the annexures also filed
alongwith the writ application. We find from a
very close reading of the writ application that
the petitioner has not at all made out any case
with respect to any challenge to any class III or
class IV posts either in the past or for any
future appointments. Despite the fact that the
petitioner did not either challenge any
appointment on class III or class IV posts made in
the past, nor sought any quashing of any such
order, nor did the petitioner make out any case in
favour of restraining the respondent corporation
from making any such appointment on any such posts
in future, why and under what circumstances did
this court have to issue the aforesaid restrain
order against the corporation on 12.8.1999 is at
all not understood by us. Since we were at a
total loss to understand as to why did it have to
issue such a blanket restraint orders against the
corporation, we tried our best to take the
assistance of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner to explain to us and educate us as
to the reasons and circumstances under which such
an order had to be passed by this court.
We must say very, very painfully that the learned
3
counsel appearing for the petitioner was not able
to explain to us any reason or ground for this
court having done so. We repeatedly told him so
that because we do not want to vacate an interim
order unless we are very sure of the reasons and
grounds for doing so, he should explain to us the
aforesaid reasons. But he could not offer any
help to us.
Since no one has been able to explain to us the
raison d'etre, objective, purpose, background or
the circumstances under which such a blanket order
has to be passed by this court, we have no
hesitation in vacating that order, specially in
view of the fact that an utility service like
Ranchi Municipal Corporation cannot be perpetually
restrained from keeping so many posts vacant.
Keeping posts vacant would vitally affect the
functioning of the corporation in a public
interest matter.
We are, therefore, inclined to vacate the
aforesaid restraint order passed by this court on
12.8.1999.
However, before permitting the corporation to make
appointments, we would like to know from the
corporation the manner and modus operandi, which
it would adopt in making these appointments. We
are saying so because we do not want the
corporation to make appointments in an arbitrary
manner. We, therefore, direct the corporation to
formulate a scheme whereby it proposes to make
those appointments. Undoubtedly, such a scheme
should ensure that the widest possible
participation of all eligible candidates would be
invited and that no appointment would be made in
any arbitrary manner. If Rules already exist for
such a purpose, the corporation need not formulate
any fresh scheme and can inform us about the
existent rule position. The corporation is,
therefore, directed to file an affidavit in the
court by the next date explaining to us as to how
and in what manner does it propose to make
appointments. We shall pass final order only
after going through the said affidavit.”
On the next date of hearing, the administrator of the
appellant presented a scheme for recruitment along with the
4
relevant rules.
By the impugned order, the High Court approved the scheme
subject to various modifications and vacated the interim order
dated 12.8.1999.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the record.
In our opinion, the impugned order is legally unsustainable
inasmuch as it runs contrary to the provisions of the Act
applicable to Ranchi Municipal Corporation and the Rules framed
thereunder for recruitment of class-III and class-IV employees.
In the writ petition filed by him by way of public interest
litigation, the respondent had not challenged vires of the Act or
the Rules which regulate recruitment in the services of the
Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the High Court was not, at
all, justified in requiring the appellant to present the scheme
regulating the recruitment of class-III and class-IV employees
elaborating the procedure and methodology for recruitment against
the advertised post and then issue directions for effecting
modifications in the scheme.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set
aside.
We are further of the view that the writ petition filed by
respondent No.1 was clearly misconceived and the Division Bench
of the High Court committed a serious error by entertaining the
same and passing various interim orders. Therefore, the writ
5
petition is withdrawn to this Court and is dismissed. The Ranchi
Municipal Corporation shall now make recruitment against the
vacant posts in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Act and the Rules framed thereunder. However, it is made clear
that any regular recruitment made during the pendency of the
appeal before this Court shall not be adversely affected by this
direction.
.....................J.
(G.S.SINGHVI)
......................J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 27, 2011.
6
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3278 OF 2003
THE ADMINISTRATOR, RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPN. .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. ......RESPONDENTS
JUDGEMENT
This is an appeal for setting aside order dated
21.03.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand
High Court, whereby direction has been given for
utilisation of the funds made available for civic
amenities.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. Shri Anurag Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant made available a statement
showing the details of the steps taken by the Ranchi
Municipal Corporation to provide public conveniences
during the period from 2001-2002 to 2010-2011. The same
is taken on record.
In view of the above, we do not find any
justification to interfere with the direction given by
the High Court.
7
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The High Court
is requested to dispose of the writ petition as early as
possible.
...........................J.
( G.S.SINGHVI )
............................J.
( ASOK KUMAR GANGULY )
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 27, 2011.
8