RANA PRATAP SINGH versus VITTIYA EVAM LEKHA ADHIKARI, DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 18-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
177
RANA PRATAP SINGH
v.
VITTIYA EVAM LEKHA ADHIKARI,
DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9220 of 2019)
DECEMBER 18, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – Validity of – One 'S' was working
as Junior Accounts Clerk - Later, he was promoted as Assistant
Accountant giving rise to a vacancy in the post of Junior Accounts
Clerk – Thereafter, the Selection Committee interviewed the
candidates for the post of Junior Accounts Clerk – Appellant was
selected by respondent no. 1 for the said post – However, by order
dated 11.11.1992, the promotion of 'S' as Assistant Accountant was
cancelled by respondent no. 1 – Consequent to which, the
appointment of the appellant as Junior Accounts Clerk was
terminated – Both 'S' and appellant filed writ petitions against the
order dated 11.11.1992 – In the writ petition filed by 'S', High Court
stayed the order dated 11.11.1992 for 3 months – However, the writ
petition filed by the appellant was dismissed – Pursuant to the order
of the High Court in writ petition of 'S', respondent no. 1 stayed the
cancellation of promotion of 'S' and re-appointed appellant till
27.02.1993 – On 27.02.1993, appellant was asked to hand over
the charge of his post to another person – Appellant filed writ petition
against the order dated 27.02.1993 and the said order was stayed
by the High Court - Appellant was re-appointed – 'S' by virtue of the
interim order passed in his writ petition attained the age of super-
annuation – The writ petition filed 'S' became infructuous due to
efflux of time and was dismissed – Meanwhile, appellant also
continued working and was even promoted – On 02.02.2012, the
writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and the Single
Judge of High Court held that appointment of the appellant was
made without following the procedure of law and his appointment
was limited till 27.02.1993 – Division Bench of High Court further
held that since writ petition filed by 'S' was dismissed, his reversion
had attained finality and consequently there was no vacancy on the
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 177
177
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
post of Junior Accounts Clerk hence, the appellant had no right to
continue on his post – On appeal, held : The appointment of the
appellant was made by Selection Committee Constituted under 1985
rules after calling the names from Employment Exchange, the
appointment was not made in disregard to the statutory rules –
Further, no challange was made to the appointment by any candidate
nor appointing authority had questioned the appointment – As far
as appointment of appellant till 27.02.1993 is concerned, the order
dated 01.01.1993 refers it as an order of re-appointment but in
essence it was an order reinstatement of appellant – The Single Judge
of the High Court lost sight of the fact that the date 27.02.1993 was
mentioned in letter dated 01.01.1993 because of the fact that interim
order of 'S' was continued after 3 months, the appellant also had
become entitled to continue – Insofar as dismissal on merits, it was
dismissed as infructuous by efflux of time without determination of
any issue – Also, when 'S' never reverted on his post and continued
on his promotional post till his retirement, it was a too technical view
that vacancy of his original post came to an end by dismissal of writ
petition – The dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous cannot
altogether wipe out the right of the appellant to continue on his post
of Junior Accounts Clerk on which 'S' never returned in fact –
Therefore, Judgment of the Single Judge and Divison Bench of High
Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Whether appointment of appellant on the post of
Junior Accounts Clerk on 21.12.1990 was not validly made in
accordance with law?
1. There is no denial on the part of the respondents that the
names were called from the Employment Exchange by the
appointing authority before conducting the selection and the
Employment Exchange had forwarded the twelve names which
also included the name of appellant. The appointment of the
appellant having been made by Selection Committee constituted
under Statutory Rules after calling the names from Employment
Exchange, the appointment cannot be said to have been made in
disregard to the Statutory Rules. [Para 23][188-C-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
179
2. More so in the present case, there was no challenge to
the appointment by any candidate nor any pr

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