RANA PRATAP SINGH vs. VITTIYA EVAM LEKHA ADHIKARI DIST. BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9220 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO. 7505 OF 2018) RANA PRATAP SINGH     … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VITTIYA EVAM LEKHA ADHIKARI, DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION  OFFICER AND ORS.          … RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. 1. This   appeal   has   been   filed   against   the Division   Bench   judgment   of   Allahabad   High   Court dated 06.02.2018 in Special Appeal No.432 of 2012 by which judgment the Special Appeal filed by the appellant   questioning   the   judgment   of   learned Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2019.12.18 16:22:59 IST Reason: 1 of 39 Single   Judge   dated   02.02.2012   in   writ   petition No.15408 of 1993 has been dismissed.  2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are: ­ One   Shiv   Kumar   Rai   was   working   as   Junior Accounts Clerk in the office of Finance and Accounts   Officer,   Office   of   District   Basic Education Officer, respondent No.1. Shri Shiv Kumar Rai was promoted as Assistant Accountant giving rise to a vacancy in the post of Junior Accounts Clerk. The respondent No.1 called for names from the Employment Exchange, Azamgarh. The Employment Exchange forwarded the list of twelve candidates to the respondent No.1. The Selection   Committee   was   constituted   in accordance with the Statutory Rules namely The Subordinate   Offices   Ministerial   Staff(Direct Recruitment)   Rules,   1985,   to   hold   the 2 of 39 selection   on   the   vacant   post   of   Junior Accounts   Clerk.   The   name   of   petitioner   was also included in the list of twelve candidates forwarded   by   Employment   Exchange,   Azamgarh. The   Selection   Committee   interviewed   the candidates   on   16.08.1989   but   the   said selection was cancelled by the respondent No.1 and   fresh   process   was   initiated   for   holding selection. An advertisement was published by District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh in Daily   News   Paper   “Dainik   Devvrat”   dated 05.12.1990   calling   for   application   from candidates   for   a   vacant   post   of   Junior Accounts   Clerk.   Candidates   were   called   to appear for interview on 20.12.1990. By letter dated 07.12.1990, the respondent No.1 wrote to District   Employment   Officer,   Azamgarh requesting the Employment Officer to intimate at his level the twelve candidates whose names 3 of 39 were forwarded for the vacant post of Junior Accounts   Clerk   to   appear   for   interview   on 20.12.1990.   Letter   also   mentioned   that   the twelve   candidates   who   were   forwarded   by Employment Exchange have also been intimated by   respondent   No.1   to   present   themselves before Selection Committee on 20.12.1990. On 20.12.1990,   petitioner   along   with   other candidates   appeared   before   the   Selection Committee. The petitioner was selected by the Selection   Committee   and   recommended   for appointment   on   the   post   of   Junior   Accounts Clerk. Respondent No.1 issued an appointment Order   dated   21.12.1990   to   the   petitioner appointing him on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk.   Order   futher   mentioned   that   the appointment   is   temporary.   In   pursuance   of appointment Order dated 21.12.1990, petitioner joined   on   22.12.1990.   By   Order   dated 4 of 39 11.11.1992, the promotion of Shiv Kumar Rai as Assistant   Accountant   was   cancelled   by respondent   No.1.   On   same   day,   consequential letter   dated   11.11.1992   was   also   issued terminating the appointment of the petitioner due to Shiv Kumar Rai having been reverted to his   Original   post   of   Junior   Accounts   Clerk. Shiv Kumar Rai filed a W.P.No.44384 of 1992 challenging order dated 11.11.1992.   Learned Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   vide   order dated   27.11.1992   stayed   the   Order   dated 11.11.1992 for a period of three months. The petitioner   also   filed   a   writ   petition challenging   the   order   dated   11.11.1992. Petitioner being not aware of the order dated 27.11.1992   could   not   point   out   to   the   High Court about the stay of the Order of reversion passed   of   Shiv   Kumar   Rai.   Hence,   his   writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 5 of 39 04.12.1992.   While   dismissing   the   writ petition,   High   Court   also   observed   that petitioner's   claim   may   be   considered   on   the post of Junior Accounts Clerk which fell due to promotion of Ram Sinhasan at whose instance the promotion of Shiv Kumar Rai was cancelled. Respondent No.1 issued order dated 01.01.1993, consequent to passing of interim order of the High Court staying the reversion order dated 11.11.1992 of Shiv Kumar Rai re­appointing the petitioner   on   the   post   of   Junior   Accounts Clerk   till   27.02.1993.   The   interim   order passed in writ petition No.44384 of 1992 of Shiv Kumar Rai was continued by order dated 09.04.1993 which directed:   "The   interim   order   dated 27.11.1992   is   continued   and   the petitioner   will   be   paid   salary regularly."  6 of 39

7 of 39

8 of 39

9 of 39

10 of 39

11 of 39

12 of 39

13 of 39

14 of 39

15 of 39

16 of 39

17 of 39

18 of 39

19 of 39 advertisement has informed that it is not possible to verify the same, it being a very old matter.  21. Learned   counsel   submits   that   there   was   no publication   in   the   newspaper   and   the   claim   of publication was only invented for the purpose of this case. 22. Appellant has refuted the above submission of the respondent and submits that newspaper has been filed   before   the   High   Court   and   further   in   the reports   which   were   submitted   with   regard   to complaints   against   the   appellant,   it   was specifically   mentioned   that   the   publication   was made   in   the   News   Paper   'Dainik   Devvrat'   on 05.12.1992. 23. There   is   no   denial   on   the   part   of   the respondents  that  the  names  were  called  from  the 20 of 39 Employment   Exchange   by   the   appointing   authority before conducting the selection and the Employment Exchange had forwarded the twelve names which also included the name of appellant. The appointment of the   appellant   having   been   made   by   Selection Committee constituted under Statutory Rules after calling   the   names   from   Employment   Exchange,   the appointment cannot be said to have been made in disregard to the Statutory Rules. 24.   More so in the present case, there was no challenge to the appointment by any candidate nor any proceedings were initiated by the appointing authority   questioning   the   appointment   of   the appellant.  The  first  writ petition  was  filed  by the appellant when consequent to reversion of Shiv Kumar Rai on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk on which   appellant   was   working,   his   services   were terminated by order dated 11.11.1992. 21 of 39 25. We,   thus,   conclude   that   appointment   of   the appellant   cannot   be   said   to   have   been   made   in disregard to the Rules and further, no proceedings were   initiated   either   by   any   candidate   or   by appointing   authority   questioning   the   appointment of the appellant.  26. Learned   Single   Judge   without   taking   into consideration   the   facts   of   constitution   of Selection   Committee,   calling   the   names   from Employment Exchange has made observations that no procedure   known   to   law   namely   'Publication   of Notification'   etc.   was   adopted   which   cannot   be approved.   Without   having   full   aspect   of   the matter,   no   such   observation   ought   to   have   been made   by   learned   Single   Judge   more   so   when   the appointment   was   not   questioned   either   by   any candidate or by appointing authority by initiating any process.  22 of 39

23 of 39

24 of 39

25 of 39 affect the petitioner's right to continue on the basis of his appointment dated 21.12.1990. In view of the interim order passed in writ petition on 27.11.1992,   the   order   impugned   in   the   writ petition   of   the   appellant   was   not   operative, hence,   dismissal   of   writ   petition   on   04.12.1992 shall   not   have   that   adverse   effect   as   has   been noted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 02.02.2012.  30. It   is   due   to   the   above   reason   that subsequently the appellant was reinstated on the post on 01.01.1993 because vacancy on which he was appointed   became   available   by   the   interim   order obtained by Shiv Kumar Rai on 27.11.1992.  III) Whether re­appointment of the appellant dated 01.01.1993 been limited only till 27.02.1993 after afflux  of the said  period,  appellant's  right  to continue on the post shall come to an end? 26 of 39

27 of 39

28 of 39

29 of 39

30 of 39 35. Learned Single Judge, thus, committed error in not   correctly   appreciating   the   consequence   of order of the High Court dated 04.12.1992 in the first writ petition and nature of the letter dated 01.01.1993.  36. We, thus, are of the view that letter dated 01.01.1993 cannot be said to be re­appointment of the   appellant.   The   order   was   in   essence   re­ instatement of the appellant in consequence of his earlier   appointment   dated   21.12.1990.   From   the materials brought on record ,it is also clear that the   Education   Authorities   has   also   treated   the appointment   of   appellant   continuing   from 22.12.1990, which is clear from order of approval of increment dated 30.12.2000, Annexure RA­6 and subsequent   order   issued   by   Finance   and   Accounts Officer where date of appointment of appellant has been mentioned as 21.12.1990.  31 of 39 IV) Whether by dismissal of W.P.No.44384 of 1992 Shiv Kumar Rai Versus Director Basic Education and others on 15.09.2001 shall result in terminating the vacancy on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk on which appellant was appointed and was working?  37.  The Division Bench has dismissed the special appeal of the appellant solely relying on the fact that by dismissal of writ petition of Shiv Kumar Rai on 15.09.2001, the vacancy of post of Junior Accounts Clerk shall come to an end.  38.   In   the   writ   petition   of   Shiv   Kumar   Rai, interim order was passed on 27.11.1992 which was continued on  09.04.1993.  It  is  submitted  by  the counsel   for   the   appellant   that   cancellation   of promotion of Shiv Kumar Rai on 11.11.1990 too was on account of claim of promotion raised by another accounts   clerk   Mr.Ram   Sinhasan   Rai.   It   is submitted that Ram Sinhasan Rai retired in 1999. Ram  Sinhasan  Rai  was  never  promoted  and  interim order in favour of Shiv Kumar Rai continued till 32 of 39 Ram Sinhasan Rai retired in the year 1999. It is submitted that writ petition of Shiv Kumar Rai has been  dismissed  as infructuous by  efflux  of  time which is clearly mentioned in the order dismissing the   writ   petition.     The   writ   petition   of   Shiv Kumar   Rai   was   not   dismissed   on   merits.   Writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by efflux of time   without   determination   of   any   issue.   Shiv Kumar   Rai   continued   to   work   on   his   promotional post   till   he   retired   on   29.02.2008.   When   Shiv Kumar   Rai   did   not   revert   on   post   of   Junior Accounts   Clerk   and   continued   to   work   till   his retirement,   the   dismissal   of   writ   petition   as infructuous cannot altogether wipe out the right of the appellant to continue on his post of Junior Accounts Clerk on which post Shiv Kumar Rai never returned in fact. 33 of 39

34 of 39

35 of 39 his   post   and   continued   on   his   promotional   post till   his   retirement,   it   will   be   taking   a   too technical view that vacancy of his original post shall   come   to   an   end   by   dismissal   of   the   writ petition. More so, the writ petition was dismissed as   infructuous   on   efflux   of   time   without   an adjudication   on   merits   and   without   High   Court being   made   aware   of   the   subsequent   events.   The Division Bench did not advert to the other aspects of   the   matter   which   were   adverted   to   by   the learned   Single   Judge,   without   examining   the correctness  of  the  view  taken by  learned  Single Judge, the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal solely relying on dismissal of above writ petition of Shiv Kumar Rai. 42.  Learned counsel for the respondents had also submitted that the conduct of the appellant is not such that he may be entitled for any relief. It is 36 of 39 submitted   that   when   the   writ   petition   was dismissed   by   learned   Single   Judge   on   02.02.2012 and   special   appeal   came   to   be   dismissed   on 06.02.2018,   the   appellant   was   not   entitled   to continue or receive any salary. He submits that he had concealed the dismissal of writ petition from the department. 43. A perusal of the order of the High Court dated 02.02.2012 indicates that learned counsel for the parties were heard. The order dated 02.02.2012 was not   an   ex   parte   order   and   the   appellant immediately   filed   an   special   appeal   which   is numbered   as   Special   Appeal   No.432   of   2012.   The arguments   of   the   respondents   cannot   be   accepted that   the   appellant   concealed   dismissal   of   writ petition from learned Single Judge. More so, the appellant was allowed/continued by the respondents on   his   post   and   by   order   dated   01.08.2012,   an 37 of 39 order   of   confirmation   was   also   passed   by   the Department  confirming him on  the  post of  Junior Accounts Clerk from 22.12.1990 and on the post of Assistant   Accountant   w.e.f.   22.12.2004.   The appellant   was   also   given   promotional   scale   of Assistant   Accountant   w.e.f.   22.12.2004.   The Department   having   continued   the   appellant   and granted him promotion and confirmation, It cannot be   said   that   the   appellant   committed   any concealment or mis­representation.   44. We   further   notice   that   appellant   has   been continuing   on   his   post   for   the   last   twenty   six years and even after dismissal of writ petition of Shiv  Kumar  Rai  on 15.09.2001  more than  eighteen years have passed. The appellant has been promoted on next higher post and working on the next higher post as on date. 38 of 39 45. Learned   Single   Judge   has   not   correctly appreciated   the   issues   as   noticed   and   discussed above.  The  Division  Bench rested  its  opinion  on one   issue   without   taking   into   consideration subsequent events and the fact that writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by efflux of time.  46. Taking   into   consideration   entire   facts   and circumstances, we are of the view that judgment of learned Single Judge dated 02.02.2012 as well as the   Division   Bench   deserve   to   be   set   aside.   We Order accordingly. The appeal is allowed.    ...................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) ...................J. (NAVIN SINHA) NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 18, 2019. 39 of 39