Full Judgment Text
U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ORS.
A
v.
DURGA PRASAD SINGH AND ORS.
JANUARY 9; 1!195
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]
Service Law'-(J.P. Jal Nigam Sen,ice of Engineers (Public Health
by
Branch) Regulations, 1977-:Recmitment selection from amongst eligible
candidates on the basis of the record and interview-Constitution of Commit- C
tee as per orders of High Court-Held, valid-Committee to consider the cases
according to Rules and Regulations-Directions issued.
FolloWing the direction of the Single Judge dated January, 14, 1993,
the appellant constituted a Selection Committee and called the persons for
interview for selection. The applicants contended that calling the persons D
for interview was not warranted either hy Rule 16 of U.P. Jal Nigam Service
ofEoi:ineers (Public Health Branch) Regolations, 1977 or the Order of the
Single Judge.
Disposing of the application, this Court
E
HELD: 1. Rule 16 of the U.P.Jal Nlgam Service of Engineers (Pnbllc
Health Branch) Regolations, 1977 and Option No.4 in the order of the
Single Judge as upheld by this Court contemplated constitution of a
Committee. Necessarily a Committee has to be constituted and the Com- F
mittee as contemplated nnder Rule 16 has chosen to be the forum to
been
consider the record of the ellgible candidates besides being called for
interview to adjndge their merit. [120-G-H]
2. There is no inconsistency between the action taken by the Nigam
in implementing the order of this Court and the order of the Single Judge. G
It is howiver made clear that any of the contentions raised by the respon-
dent/applicant seeking clarification of the order would not be an impedi-
ment for the Committee, while considering their cases for selection fairly
and objectively Without any prejudice. The Committee will do well to
consider their cases according to Rules and Regulations. [121-A-B]
H
119
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 2 of 1995.
In
Civil Appeal No. of
9214 1994.
B From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.94 of the Allahabad High
Court W.P. No. 72(SB) of
in 1994.
Rajiv Dhawan, Ms. Nalini Tripathi, I.M. Buddissi and R.B. Misra for
the Appellants.
c
P .P. Rao and Pramod Swarup for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order of the
D learned Single Judge dated January 14, 1993 made in' Writ Petition No.
8504 of with regard to the fourth option mentioned therein is clear
1987
·which we have already extracted while allowing the appeal at page 20 of
the paper' book. Sri. P .P. Rao, learned Senior ciiunsel appearing for the
applicant contends that while follwing the directions of the learned Single
Judge, the Jal Nigam had constituted a Selection Committee and called the
E persons for interview which is not warranted under the order. He1 states
that Rule 16 of U .P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Pllblic Health
Branch) Regulations, 1977 provides that in the case of recruitment by
selection on the basis of interview alone, the candidates eligible for recruit-
ment under these regulations are to a~pear before the Selection Committee
of the Nigam and on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection
F
Committee, the Nigam shall draw up a list of candidates selected in order
of merit. The respondents need only t? look into the record and not the
basis of the interview. Rule 16 would not apply. The Nigam would, there-
fore, not be justify for making selection on the basis of interview. We find
no force in this contention. In view of the fact that the selection is to be
G made in the light of option No. 4 which is now sought to be implemented
as per orders of the learned Single Judge as upheld by Court, neces-
this
sarily a ·committee has to be constituted and the Committee as con-
templated under Rule 16 has been chosen to be the forum to consider the
record of the eligible candidates besides being called for interview to
adjudge their merit.
H
U.P.JALNIGAMv. D.P.SINGH
121
Under these circumstances there is no inconsistency between the A
action taken by the Nigam in implementing the order of this Court and the
order of the learned Single Judge. It is, however, made clear that any of
the contentions raised b~ the r~spondeiitfapplicant seeking clarification of
the order would not be an impediment for the Committee, while .consider-
ing their cases for selection fairly and objectively without any prejudice. B
We hope and trust that the Committee will do well to consider their cases
according to Rules & Regulations. I.A is disposed of accordingly.
A.G. Petition disposed of.