LexKRISHAN KUMAR MADAN AND ORS. versus ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
KRISHAN KUMAR MADAN AND ORS.
v.
ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8336-8337 of 2011)
AUGUST 29, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law – U.P. Public Service Commission invited
applications for the post of Personal Assistant in the year 1999 –
The erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh was reorganised into the State
of Uttar Pradesh and the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand)
on 09.11.2000 – Appellants though selected (i.e. on 03.03.2000)
before the reorganisation of the State, however, were appointed
after the reorganisation in the year 2001 – The State of U.P.
provided option to appellants to serve either in the State of U.P. or
the State of Uttarakhand – Appellants opted for the State of
Uttarakhand – High Court held that the appellants remained
employees of the State of U.P – Held: High Court overlooked the
guidelines issued by the Central Government – Para (5)(c) of the
guidelines refers to cases of selections where results were published
prior to the cut-off date (09.11.2000) but appointment letters were
not issued to candidates – In the guidelines it was further
stipulated that where panels had been recently published, the
selected candidates were to be notified that they may not be
required beyond the appointed day (09.11.2000) in the State of U.P.
and would be liable to serve the successor State of Uttaranchal –
In instant case, appellants were declared to be employees of the
State of U.P. by the High Court without noticing that the
appointment letters issued to them clearly stipulated that their
services could be transferred to the successor State of Uttarakhand
– Furthermore, the Central Government permitted the transfer of
employees on the basis of the mutual consent of both the States –
Pursuant thereto, services of the appellants were transferred and
absorbed by the State of Uttarakhand with the mutual consent of
both the States – No infirmity in the procedure adopted by both the
States in transfer of employees – Thus, Judgment of the High Court
set aside – U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000.
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 364
364
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
365
Appellants were selected for the post of Personal
Assistant on 3.03.2000 in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Meanwhile,
the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh was reorganised into the
State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of Uttaranchal (now
Uttarakhand) on 9 November 2000. Thereafter, appellants were
appointed as Personal Assistants in the year 2001. The
appellants opted to serve the State of Uttarakhand. High Court
held that the appellants remained employees of the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Hence, appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has overlooked the guidelines
issued by the Central Government on 13 September 2000.
Para (5)(c) of the guidelines refers to cases of selections where
results were published prior to the cut-off date but appointment
letters were not issued to candidates. Para (5) (c) contemplates
that recruitments would be kept in abeyance until final allocation
orders were made. This was to be so even where panels were
drawn but not given effect to. The High Court has directed its
attention to a sole consideration, namely whether there existed
any statutory provision for transferring an employee from one
State to another State. The appellants were declared to be
employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh by the High Court
without noticing that the appointment letters issued to them
clearly stipulated that their services could transferred to the
successor State of Uttarakhand. Such a transfer took place with
the consent of both the States. [Para 18] [372-B-D]
2. The State of Uttarakhand was created with the enactment
of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 which reorganized the State
of Uttar Pradesh into two states namely, the successor State of
Uttar Pradesh and the State of Uttarakhand. Under the Act, 9
November 2000 was the appointed day. The Central Government,
by its letter dated 15 September 2004, permitted the transfer of
employees on the basis of the mutual consent of both the States.
The State of U.P. gave options to existing employees appointed
before 9 November 2000 for transfer of their services to the State
of Uttarakhand. However, despite those efforts, the State of
Uttrakhand was facing acute shortage of officers and a number of
vacancies continued in the newly formed State of Uttarakhand.
KRISHAN KUMAR MExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.