FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus BHANU LODH AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 350 · Decided: 24-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
BHANU LODH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 2005 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Food Corporation Act, 1964-Section 6(2)-Directives under-By 
Central. Gqvernment-Regarding recruitment of staff-Competence of Central 
C Government to issue Directives-Courts below held that Central Government 
not competent to issue the Directives because the power under the provision 
in confined only to policy decision concerning business of the Corporation~ 
On appeal, held: Central Government Competent to issue the Directives-
Policy would include policy of recruitment and many other details which 
would have serious financial impact and in the long run would affect the 
D in.terests ·of the consumers/producers-cFilling up of a post or not being a 
policy decision, cannot be interfered with in judicial review unless infected 
with vice of arbitrariness-Constitution of India, 1950-~rticles 14, 32 and 
226: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Service Law : 
Recruitment of Departmental candidates-Contrary to Recruitment 
Rules-Using power to relax the Rules-Validity of recruitment-Held: 
Recruitment not valid-Power of relaxation to be used in marginal cases 
where exceptionally qualified candidates are available. 
Constitution of India, 1950---Article 14-Recruitment-Done in respect . 
of one category of posts-Denied in respect of another category-
Discrimination alleged-Held: Discrimination arises among similarly situated 
persons-Such act is valid as there is nothing in common between the category 
of posts. 
Appellant-Corporation issued an advertisement for direct. 
recruitment to the posts of Joint Manager/Deputy Manager in the 
Corporation. After the select list of the candidates was finalized, 
Government of India issued a directive in exercise of its power u/s. 6(2) 
of Food Corporation Act, 1964 indicating therein the policy instruction 
350 
F.C.l. v. BHANU LODH 
351 
not to create/upgrade posts of any level except where completely A 
unavoidable; not to fill up vacancies by fresh recruitment; and not to 
further revise conditions of service without prior approval of Central 
Government. While recruitment process for the post of Deputy Manager 
was being carried on, on receipt of complaints regarding manner of 
recruitment in excessive relaxation of the maximum age, Central B 
Government issued a second directive imposing a complete ban on the 
recruitment process as being in violation of the recruitment Regulations. 
As a result of second directive, process for selection for the post of Deputy 
Manager was stopped, but the process was carried further for selection 
to the post of Joint Manager. 
c 
The officers/employees of the Corporation including the employees-
respondent in the present case filed writ Petitions in different High Courts 
challenging the order of Central Government putting freeze on the 
appointment of departmental candidates as being beyond purview of 
Section 6 of the Act. The only question pressed before High Court was 
regarding competence of Central Government to interfere with internal D 
administration of the Corporation particularly regarding appointment and 
service of its staff. Single Judge of High Court held that power of Central 
Government u/s 6(1) and (2) was confined to policy decision concerning 
business of the Corporation and was not in respect of internal management 
including appointment, promotion, transfer of the staff. In the Writ E 
Appeals by Central Government and by respondent No. 1 - employee, 
Division Bench of High Court upholding the order of Single Judge held 
that Central Government had no power to issue the impugned directives; 
and that since 39 departmental candidates were above maximum age limit, 
they should be excluded from consideration and other qualified employees 
be appointed from the select list. Hence the present appeals by the F 
Corporation and Special Leave Petition by the Employee. Special Leave 
Petition was only to canvass some of the points taken in the Writ Appeal, 
on the ground that they were not considered in the impugned judgment. 
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the 
Court 
G 
HELD : 1. The directives issued by Central Government are well 
within the ambit of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of Food Corporation Act, 
1964. The words of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act direct that the 
Board of Directors in discharging its functions "shall act on business H 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2

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