LexJITEN KUMAR SAHOO & ORS. versus CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MAHANADI COALFILEDS LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011) 1 S.C.R. 572 JITEN KUMAR SAHOO & ORS. v. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MAHANADI COALFILEDS LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1043 of 2011) JANUARY 27, 2011 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Service Law - Appointment - Government undertaking C - Appointment of appellants who had undertaken apprenticeship with the undertaking - Writ petitions by respondents seeking quashing of the appointments - Direction by High Court to fill up the post from the merit list prepared earlier without giving preference to those who had o undertaken apprenticeship with the government undertaking - On appeal held: Appellants were impleaded as party respondents in the writ petitions for the first time after ten years - They were not initially impleaded though primary relief was · sought against them - Appellants have got three promotions E and other candidates have been appointed to the post - Thus, . writ petitions not entitled to any discretionary relief - Order passed by the High Court set aside. . 38 vacancies of Mazdoors, category-I (ITI) occurred . in MCL, a government undertaking. The candidates F sponsored by the employment exchange appeared for ·the written test and the trade test. A merit list was prepared on basis of the qualifying marks. Out of 38 vacancies, 24 vacancies were filled up. Subsequentty, 84 fresh vacancies arose. MCL requested the employment G exchange for their permission to fill up fresh vacancies from amongst the candidates who had qualified hi the written test and the trade test which was conducted earlier. There being no response from the employment exchange, MCI filled up 51 vacancies out of 84 fresh H 572 ,._ I .,_ JITEN KUMAR SAHOO v. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER 573 MAHANADI COALFILEDS LTD. vacancies by giving employment to the appellants- A candidates who had already undergone the apprenticeship with MCL. The respondents filed writ petitions seeking quashing of the appointments given to 51 appointees; and that they be absorbed in the vacant posts. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. It B directed MCL to fill up 51 newly sanctioned posts strictly in the order of merit as per the select list prepared earlier. ~ Therefore, the appellants filed the Instant appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court c HELD 1.1 The appellants were not initially impleaded as party respondents in the writ petitions although primary relief in the writ petitions was to quash their selection and appointments. The appellants were impleaded for the first time after ten years or so. By that 0 __,. time the appellants got promoted from Mazdoor Category-I to Mazdoor Category-II and then to Mazdoor Category-Ill and thereafter, to the posts of Fitter. In view of these circumstances, the writ petitioners were not entitled to any discretionary relief by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. [Para 8] [577-E- E F] 1.2 The High Court failed to take into consideration the material aspects stated in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants that the writ petitioners impleaded the F appellants after about 10 (ten) years of their appointment , as well as selection to the post of Mazdoor Category-I; 1 that the writ petitioners though had the knowledge of the , appointment, posting, continuance in service and subsequent promotions of the appellants, they did not G challenge the same for about 10 (Ten) years and acquiescenced their claim and waived their claim if any; · and that the petitioners are estopped by acquiescence, waiver, conduct and by negligence to challenge the appointment of the appellants who are discharging their H 57 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A duties sincerely to the best satisfaction of the authority being selected and appointed to the post for about ten years. On promotion of the appellants to the higher posts, other candidates have been appointed to the posts of Mazdoor-Category I in place of the appellants. If the B order of the High Court is allowed to stand, it would not only affect the appellants who, during the continuation of their service, had got three promotions, but would also seriously affect the persons who were appointed in their .... place and were not impleaded before the High Court. c Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 9, 10 and 11) [577-G-H; 578-A-G] U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. U.P. ParivahanNigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.