M.D., U.P. LAND DEV. CORPN. AND ANR. versus AMAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 01-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.D., U.P. LAND DEV. CORPN. AND ANR. 
v. 
AMAR SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL I, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V.PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Project employment-Claim for regularisation-During a scheme known 
C as 'Million Wells Scheme '-Under a World Bank Project in State of U.P. 
certain persons were emploxedfor training as Assistant Project Managers on 
a fixed stipend-Later the "Million Wells Scheme" was discontinued-Some 
of the persons so employed, claiming regularisation filed a writ petition before 
High Court, which allowed the same-Held, once the project comes to an end, 
D services of employees also come to an end-Appointments of respondenls 
were temporary under "Million Wells Scheme "-They were never recruiled 
againsl regularly sanctioned posts on regular basis-When work of the scheme 
had come to an end, respondents were not entitled to claim regularisalion· of 
their services-Even though their services were continued by virtue of an 
interim order passed in the writ petition they cannot claim benefit of 
E regularisation of their services as a mall er of right-Judgment order of High 
Court set aside. 
Stale of Himachal Pradesh v. Nodha Ram and Ors.' AIR (1997) SC 
1445 relied on. 
F 
Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi, Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, M.P. v. Bal 
Kishan Soni and Ors., 119971 5 SCC 86; Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of 
Bihar and Ors., 119971 2 SCC I; State of U. P. and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar; 119971 
4 SCC 88 and Committee of Management, Al:ra Nagar Inter College, A1ya 
Nagar, Kanpur through its Manager and Anr. v. Sree Kumar Tiwary and Am-.; 
G 119971 4 sec 388, cited. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6847of1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.1999 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in SA. 745/98. 
266 
' 
,j 
\-
-
~ 
( 
' 
M.D., U.P. LAND DEV.CORPN. v. AMAR SINGH 
267 
Sunil Gupta. Gopal Prasad and S.K. Singh, for the Appellant. 
A 
K.B. Sinha, Rajeev Kr. Singh, Sunil Kr. Singh and Goodwill Indeevar, 
for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal is a directed against the order of the Devision Bench of the 
High Court. In short and substance, the facts leading to filing of this appeal 
are: 
B 
The appellant-Corporation took a decision to prepare a panel of 25 
posts of Assistant Project Managers. Pursuant to the said decision the C 
Corporation wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University on 
9.11.1990 seeking names of B.Sc.(Agr) graduates for the purpose. Thereafter, 
letters were issued to the candidates for the purpose of training of one year 
for the 'Million Wells Scheme' with a fixed stipend of Rs.1200 per month. 
The State Government on 22.2.1993 gave sanction for creation of 30 new 
and temporary posts of Assistant Manager under a new World Bank Project, D 
i.e., U.P. Sodic Land Reclamation Project. The candidates who were selected, 
were thereafter appointed as Assistant Managers after serving for sometime. 
Out of 32 candidates selected 6 persons approached the High Court by filling 
a Writ Petition seeking regularisation of their services with a grant of regular 
pay-scales. The learned Single judge allowed the Writ Petition and gave E 
direction to regularise their services and also to grant pay-scale applicable to 
the post of Assistant Manager. Initially the Writ Petition was allowed in the 
absence of representation by the Corporation, but after hearing on the 
application made for recalling the order passed by the learned Single Judge, 
the same order was passed upholding the direction given for regularisation on 
grant of pay-scales. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the 
appellant-Corporation filed Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the 
High court. The Division Bench did not find any merit in the appeal and in 
that view, concurring with the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissed 
the Special Appeal. Hence this appeal. 
In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we think it appropriate to 
refer to certain ~ocuments. The notes and order dated 2/ I I/ 1990/ prepared by 
the Director of Corporation, on which a claim is made by the respondents 
herein, reads thus: 
F 
G 
"Work is proposed to be assigned. Therefore, actually only 13 H 
268 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 3 S.C.R. 
employees would be available for the work of the Asset. Project 
Managers while under the Million Wells Scheme a total number of 
16 employees are required. In this way 3 

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