AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus VIRENDRA KUMAR JAYANTIBHAI PATEL

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 23-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
·~ 
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 
v. 
VIRENDRA KUMAR JAYANTIBHAI PATEL 
JULY 23, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : Municipal Corporation-Recruitment of Doc-
tors-Respondent not selected-Respondent raised a dispute claiming himself 
A 
B 
to be a pennanent employee having served as a workman for number of C 
years-fndustrial Tribunal holding respondent entitled to be made pennanent 
relying on an award and circulars issued by the Municipal Corporation in 
pursuance thereof-High Court also holding respondent to be a workman, 
thus entitled to being made pennanent-Whether respondent is a workman 
entitled to pennanent service and whether his case requires sympathetic con-
sideration-HELD : No, The award and the circulars issued thereunder not D 
applicable-Equity and compassion in the matter of appointment will give 
rise to nepotism and arbitrariness where merit would be a causality. 
Constitution of India : Article 226-Scope of High Court's power under. 
The appellant Corporation had been hiring the services of the E 
respondent for treating the patients on daily basis whenever the 
corporation's dental surgeons were on leave. Later on, the appellant 
decided to fill the vacant posts of dental surgeons in its clinics. The 
respondent also applied in response to the advertisement. However, the 
respondent was not selected. On being rejected, the respondent claimed F 
himself to be a permanent dental surgeon of the corporation. This dispute 
was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. There the case of the respondent 
was that since he had put in 1034 days of service, he was entitled to be 
made permanent in view of a certain award rendered by the Tribunal. 
However, the corporation submitted that the respondent was not a 
workman covered under the award. However, the tribunal relying upon the G 
, aforesaid award and the circulars issued by the corporation held that the 
respondent is entitled to be made permanent in the staff of the Corpm:a· 
tion. Aggrieved, the Corporation challenged the said award. The High 
Court held the respondent to be a workman, having served for a requisite 
number of years, thus entitled to the benefits of a permanent employee. H 
25 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Hence, this appeal. 
B 
The questions that arose for examination of this court were whether 
the finding of the tribunal that the respondent was a workman entitled to 
permanent service was based upon relevant materials; and whether the 
case of respondent required sympathetic consideration. 
Allowin_g the appeal, this court 
HELD : 1.1. The award of the tribunal and circulars issued in 
pursuance thereof by the Corporation were not applicable to the case of 
the respondent and if these materials are excluded, the finding of the 
C tribunal that the respondent is a workman entitled to permanent status in 
the service of the corporatfon is rendered without any evidence and ex-
posed to the vice of error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the 
High Court fell in error in dismissing the Writ Petition holding that the 
finding of fact recorded by tribunal does not call for interference. [30-E-F] 
D 
1.2. The recruitment of the doctors in the clinic run by the Corpora~ 
tion i~ made in accordance with the statutory rules and by no other 
method. Under the rules the vacancies are advertised for inviting applica-
tions from eligible candidates. After the applications are received the 
selection committee is constituted to select the candidates for appointment 
E in the Corporation clinic. Only after the candidates are selected they are 
taken in the service. The respondent appeared before the selection com-
mittee but was not selected. Under such circumstances, there is no room 
for sympathy or equity in the matter of such appointment specially whe1:e 
the recruitment in service is governed by the statutory rules. If the reason- . 
F 
ing given by the tribunal is accpeted, the statutory recruitment rules would 
become nugatory or otiose and the department can favour any person or 
appoint any person without following procedure provided in the recruit-
ment rules which would lead to nepotism and arbitrariness. Once the 
consideration of equity in the face of statutory rules is accepted thm 
G 
eligible and qualified persons would be sufferers as they would not get any 
chance to be considered for appointment. The result would be that persons 
lesser in merit would get preference in

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