LexSWARAN LATA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
•
953
SWARAN LATA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .
January 16, 1979
[A. P. SEN AND V. R. KRISHNA lYER, JJ.J
Constitution-Art. 309, proviso--lf obligatory on the part of the Gov«
t~rranent to n:ake rules of recruitment before a sen•u'r! could bl' constituted or
a post created or filled.
Jntervrctation of statutes-States Reorganisation Act, 1966-S. 84-Scopc of
A
B
--Section, if an incidental provision-Effect of incidentul provision after its pur-
C
pose was served .
....... ~
Administrative directions issued by Jhe Central Government for implementing
..
•
sr:/ien1e of reorganisation Of services-llf co:tltl circ11111scribe tf1e powers of Stare
,Government-Nature of instructions issued.
Servire Commission-If has power to relax e.:;sential qualifications in select-
ing a candidate for a post.
Wn:ds and phrases: "1nainly'
1-Meani11g of.
l\1ala fi.des·--Burden of proof-On lVho1n lies.
Section 84 of the States'
Reorganisation
Act,
1966
empowered
the
·Central Government to issue directions to the State Governments of Punjab
and Haryana and to the Administrator of the Union t'erritory of Chandigarh
"for the purpose of giving
effect to the foregoing provisions of this part (of
the act)". For filling up the different posts under the control of the Chief
·Commissioner, Chandigarh, the Government of 1ndia issued instructions that
the posts should be filled _up by deputation mainly from the Punjab nnd Haryana
·State cadres, and that the officer whose services were sought to be borrowed
should have been holding a post, the scale of pay of which was equivalent to
the scale of pay of the post in the Chandigarh Administration for which the
officer was to be selected on deputation.
At the request of the Chandigarh Adn1inistration
the
Govcrn1nent
of
Haryruna forwarded a panel of three names,~ including that of the appellant,
for appointment on deputation to the post of Principal of a \Vom~n
1s Techni·
cal Institute: The post carried a scale of pay of Rs. 350-900. Although
1he appellant was junior to the other two candidates, she was selected and
tempora.rily
appointed to the post
since at that time she
was on a pay
scale of Rs. 350--900 in Haryana. Since in the meantime she had been offered
a post in Delhi she left the post in Chrl.ndigarh. All efforts to get a suitable
candidate either from the State of Haryana or of Punjab having prove<l un~
successful the Chandigarh Administration requested the Union Public Service
Commission to select a. candidate for the post.
None of the candidates that applied for the post satisfied all the prescribed
-qualifications for the post.
Therefore, the UPSC relaxed one or the other
D
E
F
G
H
954
SUPRBIE COURT REPORTS
(1979] 2 S.C.R.
A
qualification in re&pect of each of the candidates and eventually selected res-
pondt:.nt No. f., for the post,
The appellant V.'as also one of the candidates
CTIUed for interviev.'; but she was not selected.
B
AHowing th0 appellant's writ ~tition :1 '.>ingle Judge of th..: Tligh Court
struck down the appointment of re~pondcnt no. 6 mainly on the ground th4t
the presence of the Director of Technk:il Education 1'epresenting the Chandi-
garh Admini5tration in the interview board Yitiated. her appointinent inasmuch
ns he was actuated by bias against 1he appellant.
But on appeal a Division
Bt.>nch reversed the order of the single Judge holding that the
allegation of
nuila (ides or bias had not been made out by the appellant against
the
re-
presentative of tht: Chandigarh A<ln1inistn1tion in the interview board.
C
The appellant. on appeal to this Cou't. contended that (I) the post being
a deputation post in terms of instn1ction<; issued by the Government of India
under s. 84 of the States' Reorganis~1tion Act, the Chandigarh Administration
had no authority to fill up the post by dir'ect recruitment and (2) the Union
Public Service Commission had no po\ver to relax the essential qualifications
of the ca~didr:.tes 'vithoLrt prior concurrence of the Chandigarh Administration.
D
Dismisfing the appe<1I,
HELD : 1 (a) The post of Principal of the lnstitu.te wns not a "deputa.
tion post" and, therefore, the appointment of respondent no. 6 to that post by
din.•ct rccruit111ent •.vas not invalid. f962 l)]
(b) It is not obligatory under the p10\'iso to Art. 309 to ntake rules. of re-
E
cruitment before a .service could be {'onstituted or a post created or filled.
The·
State Government ha.s executExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.