SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 29-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 802 of 2020)
JANUARY 29, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Service
Regulations, 1981 – Regn. 16 – U.P. Industrial Development Act,
1976 – ss.3, 5 and 19 – Respondent no. 4 was appointed on the
post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation in NOIDA and
was subsequently absorbed – Appellants filed writ petition laying
challenge to the appointment of respondent no. 4 – The High Court
dismissed the writ petition – On appeal, held: s.5 of the Act of 1976
makes it clear that the power of appointment of officers and
employees lies with the Authority subject to such control and
restrictions as may be determined by general or special orders of
State Government – Regn. 16(1)(c) of the 1981 Regulations gives
express power to the NOIDA to make appointment on deputation
which is one of source recognized under the sources of recruitment
– Once the deputation as a source of recruitment is available under
the Rules of Recruitment, there is no impediment in assuming the
power of absorption of a deputationist with the Authority by
necessary intendment or implication, under Act of 1976 and 1981
Regulations framed thereunder – Besides, in view of the provisions
of s. 80 of 1981 Regulations r/w. s.41 of U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1976, not only respondent no. 2 is bound by every
direction issued by the State Government from time to time, the
appointment of respondent no. 4 in NOIDA on deputation and his
subsequent absorption under the orders of the State Government
cannot be faulted with or can be held to be in violation of 1981
Regulations.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. From a perusal of the Section 5 of the U.P.
Industrial Development Act, 1976 provisions, it is clear that the
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 542
542
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
543
power of appointment of officers and employees lies with the
Authority subject to such control and restrictions as may be
determined by general or special orders of State Government.
The appellants failed to place before this Court any such general
or special orders of the State Government whereunder the power
of appointment which includes power of appointment by deputation
is restricted. Contrary thereto, Regulation 16(1)(c) of the New
Okhla Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations,
1981 gives express power to the NOIDA to make appointment
on deputation which is one of source recognized under the
sources of recruitment. Once the deputation as a source of
recruitment is available under the Rules of Recruitment, there
is no impediment in assuming the power of absorption of a
deputationist with the Authority by necessary intendment or
implication, under Act of 1976 and 1981 Regulations framed
thereunder. [Para 21] [551-E-F]
2. Besides this Regulation 80 of 1981 Regulations provides
that these Regulations are subject to the provisions of any Rule
made by the State Government under the Act of 1976 as directions
issued by State Government under Section 41 of U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973 or to the provisions of any
other law made on the subject by an Act of Legislature of Uttar
Pradesh or the Parliament. [Para 22] [551-G-H; 552-A]
3. 1987 Regulations having been framed under the
provisions of Section 79(c) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948, a
parliamentary enactment authorizing absorption of employees  of
erstwhile U.P. Power Corporation in Government undertakings
or other Statutory Corporations, in view of provisions of Section
80 of 1981 Regulations read with Section 41 of U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1976, not only respondent no. 2
is bound by every direction issued by the State Government from
time to time, the appointment of respondent no. 4 in NOIDA on
deputation and his subsequent absorption under the orders of
the State Government cannot be faulted with or can be held to be
in violation of 1981 Regulations. The first issue stands answered
accordingly. [Para 22] [553-B-C]
SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
4. Question of maintainability of challenge to appointment
and subsequent absorption at the behest of appellants has also
been raised by respondent nos. 2 & 3. It is vehemently contended
that appellant lacks requisite necessary qualifications for being
considered for promotion to the pos

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