STATE OF HARYANA versus S.M. SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 20-04-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARY ANA 
v. 
S.l\1. SHARl\IA AND ORS. 
APRIL 20, 1993 
n 
(KULDIPSINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL • .J~.J.l 
Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act. / 9(} I: Sectimz 3(17) (ii) 
read 11·it/J Rule 4(2) oftl1e Punjah Agricullllral Produce Market fGen-
eral) Rules. 1961 a11d Rule 13 of t/Je Harya11a State Agricultural 
C Marketing Board Se1i·ice Uules. 1974-Cl1ief Ad111i11istrator's Order 
dated 6. J. / 992 \1'it/Jdrawi11g t/Je current duty c/Jarge of the E.recwi,·e 
• E11gineer-Legalitv of 
Co11stitutio11 cf India. 1950: Article 226-Writ hy w1 employee. 
entrusted t/Je current duty c/Jarge oft/Je Executi1·e Engineer. cha/Ieng-
() i11g order \1'it/Jdra'vring sucfl cfwrge under N.ule 4(2) t~( the Punjab 
Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules. 1961 and Rule 13 <ft/Je 
Harnma State Agricultural Marketing Board Serl'ice Rules. 1974-
.fustij'icatio11 of 
E 
The respondent No. I was Sub- Divisional Officer in the service 
of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board. He was en-
trusted with the current duty chargeof'the post ofl~xecuti\'e Engineer 
h~· the order dated .lune I3, 1991 of the Chief Administrator and later 
1m hy 1trder dated Januar~· 6, 1992 withdrawing the current dut~· 
F charge from the respondent No. I, he was transforred. 
G 
The respondent No. I challenged the order before the High Court 
in a writ petition. The High Court quashing the Hoard 'sorcier allowed 
·the writ petition, against which the Board filed the present appeal by 
special lean~. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The order dated January 6, I992 is onl~· a posting 
order in respect of two officers. \\I ith the posting of one Ram Ni was 
H as Executive Engineer, the respondent No.1 was automatically re-
280 
-
-
-
I 
STATE OF HARY ANA 1·. S.\1. SHAR\1A [Kl.'LDIP SIN<"iH. J.] 
2Rl 
lie\·ed of the current dut~· charge of the post of Executh·e Engineer. 
A 
The respondent No. I was neither appointed/promoted/posted as 
Executh·e Engineer nor was he ever re\'erted from the said p<lst. He 
was onl~· holding current duty charge of the post of Executh·e 
Engineer. and as such the questi<1n of his ren~rsion from the said post 
did not arise. (285-C-D) 
1.02 The High Court fell into patent error in reading the order 
dated .I une 13, I 991 as the order promoting the respondent No. I to the 
post of Executh·e Engineer. (284-(;) 
B 
~ 
2. The High Court extended its extra-ordinar~· jurisdiction 
C 
under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia to a frin11it~·· No one has 
a right to ask for or stick to a current dut~· charge. The impugned 
order did not cause any financial loss or prejudice of ~my kind to 
respondent No. I. He had no cause of action what-.oe\·er to inn1ke the 
writ jurisdiction ,of the High Court. It was a patent misuse of the 
process of the Co~1rt. (2X5-G) 
CIVIL Al'PEILATE .ll fRISDICTlON : Civil App.:al No. I 952 
of I 993. 
From the Judgment and order dated 20.8.1992 of the Punjah and 
llaryana lligh Court in C.W.P. No. ~82 of 11>'>2. 
(i.L.Sanghi, M.R. Sharma. K.H. RPhatagi. Ms. Aparna Rohatagi 
antJ M.K. Puri fpr the Appdlant. 
V.C. Mahajan. Y.K. Shanna antJ P.N. Puri for the Respondents. 
The .Judgment of the ( 'ourt was ddiwred hy: 
, 
D 
E 
KULl>IP SINGH .• .J Special leave granted. 
G 
S. M. Sharma is empluyed as Suh Divisional Officer in the 
Service uf the l laryana State Agricultural ~farketing Board (the 
B11ard). The Chief Administrator of thL· Hoard hy tht: order dated June 
13. I <>'JI entrusted Sharma with the current duty chari;c uf the post of 
H 
2X2 
SI 1PRD1E Cot "RT REPORTS 
(1<)9~( l S.C'.R. 
A Executive Enginea. Later on by the order dated January 6, 11>92 the 
Chief Administrator withdraw the said current duty charge from 
Sharma and transferred him to Bhiwani. Sharma challenged the order 
before the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of 
the Constitution of India. The I ligh Court by its judgment dated August 
20. I 1><J2 al11 iwed the writ petition and 4uashed the order dated fanuary 
B o. l 'J'J2. This appeal by the State of I laryana is against the judg1m.:nt 
of the I ligh Court. 
The Constitution and the functioning of the Board is governed hy 
the Punjah Agricultural Produce l\farkets Act. 1961C the Act) as 
C applicahle to the State of Haryana and hy the Rules framed thereunder. 
I> 
G 
H 
Section~( 17 )(ii) of the Act cmpllwers the Board 1<1 dekgate any of its 
pPwers to its Chairman. Chief Administrator. Secretarry nr any of its 
offic.:rs. The Punjab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.