A. TRIPATHI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus J.P. GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 07-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
A. TRIP A THI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
-·-~ 
J.P. GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JANUARY 7, 1993 
B 
(KULDIP SINGH AND G.N .. RAY, JJ.] 
Service Law-Constitution of Selection Committee-U.P. Joi Nigam-
Superintendent Engineers-Selection for Additional Chief Engineer-Govern-
.-. 
men/ Order requiring nomination of expert in Selection Committee-Nomina-
c tion of Chairman Joi Nigam on Selection Committee instead of nomination 
of an Expert-Validity of-Held in the .abse11ce of any indication or order 
requiring that the expert nominated must be expert:ffl the field of Engineering-
Appointment of Chairman Jal Nigam, h~ 
~ciol knowledge in ad-
ministrative set up of Joi Nigam, as expert on Selection Committee was valid.. 
D 
-,....· 
Words and Phrases : 'Vishesagya'-Meaning of 
A Government Order dated December 14, 1979 provided that the 
Selection Committee for the post or Chief Engineer In the U.P. Jal Nigam 
shall, inter alia, consists of an Expert. G, working as· Superintendent 
E 
Engineer in the Jal Nlgam was selected as Additional Chief Engineer, 
Level·II by the Selection Committee in 1985 but was not offered appoint-
ment. In 1989 fresh selections were held by the Selection Committee in 
which T and R, working as Superintendent Engineers in the Jal Nigam, 
were selected and promoted to the post or Additional Chier Engineers. G 
was not found lit by the Selection Committee. 
F 
G tiled a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the 
selections made in 1989 on the ground that the Selection Committee was 
not properly constituted because instead or nominating an expert, the 
Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam was nominated as a member or the Committee. 
G 
During the pendency or the Writ Petition the High Court passed an 
interim order pursuant to which T and R were reverted from the posts or 
Additional Chier Engineer. High Court allowed the petition and set aside 
the selection made in 1989, and directed that G be appointed on the basis 
of his selection made in 1985. Against the judgment of the High Court, T, 
,-
Rand U.P. Jal Nigam tiled appeals in this Court. During the peodency of 
' 
H the proceedings before this Court fresh selectious were made in 1992 in 
20 
A TRIPAIBI v. J.P. GUPTA 
21 
which T was selected but R was not selected and ·consequential appoint-
A 
-~-
ments were also made. 
In appeal to this Court It was contended on behalf or T & R that the 
Selection Committee was properly constituted because BS a long standing 
practlc:e the chairman or the Jal Nigam ·was ali.ays Included as an Expert 
B 
Member or the Committee; besides the Chairman the Managing Director 
or the Jal Nlgam, who was a technical expert In the field or engineering, 
. I. 
was also one or the members of the committee; (2) mere inclusion or a 
candidate's name In the panel does not confer on him a right to appoint-
ment; selection of G made in 1985 came to an end with the lapse of time 
and (3) both T and R should first he appointed pursuant to the selection c 
-
malle In 1989 and thereafter selections made In 1992 should he given effect 
to. 
On behalf of G It was contended (1) that in the context In which the 
..,. 
selection or Additional Chief Engineer Is to he made the expression 
'Expert' must mean technical expert In the field concerning the Jal Nlgam D 
and accordingly the High Court was right In holding that the Chairman 
U.P. Jal Nlgwii cannot he held to he an expert; (2) since the Selection 
Committee of 1989 was not properly constituted G, by virtue of his In-
clusion In the 1985 panel was entitled to appointment before other eligible 
..... 
officers were considered in 1989. 
E 
On behalf of the State it was contended that the pendency of the 
proceedings before this Court did not stand in the way of making selec· 
tions in 1992 as also the consequential appointments; (2) in view of altered 
position In 1992 because of the selection and consequential appointments 
F 
no further directions should he given by this Court. 
I 
Disposing the appeals, tllls court 
HELD : 1. In the absence of any indication or any Government Order 
indicating that in the context of exercise to he made by the Selection Commit· G 
tee to prepare a panel of officers lit to he promoted to the post of Additional 
Chief Engineer Level-II of the Jal Nigam, the expert to he nominated by the 
-) 
Chief Secretary to the Selection Committee should be an expert in the field of 
Engineering or for that matter In the particular speciality of Engineering 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.