U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ORS. versus DURGA PRASAD SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 119 · Decided: 09-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ORS. 
A 
,, 
v. 
DURGA PRASAD SINGH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 9, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.) 
B 
... 
--,. 
Service Liiw-{].P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health 
Branch) Regulations, 1977-Recruitment by selection from amongst eligible 
candidates on the basis of the record and interview-Constitution of Commit- c 
tee as per orders of High Court-Held, valitJ-Committee to consider the cases 
according to Rules and Regulations-Directions issued. 
Following the direction of the Single Judge dated January, 14, 1993, 
the appellant constituted a Selection Committee and called the persons for 
- ¥.' 
interview for selection. The applicants contended that calling the persons D 
for interview was not warranted either by Rule 16 of U.P. Jal Nigam Service 
of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1977 or the Order of the 
Single Judge. 
Disposing of the application, this Court 
E 
HELD: 1. Rule 16 of the U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public 
Health Branch) Regulations, 1977 and Option No.4 in the order of the 
Single Judge as upheld by this Court contemplated constitution of a 
~ 
Committee. Necessarily a Committee has to be constituted and the Com· 
mittee as contemplated under Rule 16 has been chosen to be the forum to F 
consider the record of the eligible candidates besides being called for 
interview to adjudge their merit. [120-G-H] 
2. There is no inconsistency between the action taken by the Nigam 
in implementing the order of this Court and the order of the Single Judge. G 
.,,,.,. 
It is however made clear that any of the contentions raised by the respon-
dent/applicant seeking clarification of the order would not be an impedi· 
ment for the Committee, while considering their cases for selection fairly 
and objectively without any prejudice. The Committee will do well to 
consider their cases according to Rules and Regulations. [121-A-B] 
H 
119 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A No. 2of1995. 
'.loc 
In 
Civil Appeal No. 9214 of 1994. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.94 of the Allahabad High 
.... 
Court in W.P. No. 72(SB) of 1994. 
( 
,,... 
Rajiv Dhawan, Ms. Nalini Tripathi, J.M. Buddissi and R.B. Misra for 
the Appellants. 
c 
P.P. Rao and Pramod Swarup for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court wa~ delivered : 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order of the 
D learned Single Judge dated January 14, 1993 made in Writ Petition No. 
;... .... 
8504 of 1987 with regard to the fourth option mentioned therein is clear 
which we have already extracted while allowing the appeal at page 20 of 
the paper' book. Sri. P.P. Rao, learp.ed Senior counsel appearing for the 
applicant contends that while follwing the directions of the learned Single 
E 
Judge, the Jal Nigam had constituted a Selection Committee and called the 
persons for interview which is not warranted under the order. He. states 
that Rule 16 of U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health 
Branch) Regulations, 1977 provides that in the case of recruitment by 
selection on the basis of intei;view alone, the candidates eligible for recruit-
ment under these regulations are to appear before the Selection Committee 
tr 
F 
of the Nigam and on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection 
Committee, the Nigam shall draw up a list of candidates selected in order 
of merit. The respondents need only t~ look into the record and not the 
basis of the interview. Rule 16 would not apply. The Nigam would, there-
fore, not be justify for making selection on the basis of interview. We, find 
G 
no force in this contention. In view of the fact that the selection is to be 
made in the light of option No, 4 which is now sought to be implemented 
as per orders of the leatned Single Judge as upheld by this Court, neces-
...... 
sarily a ·committee has to be constituted and the Committee as con-
templated under Rule 16 has been chosen to be the forum to consider the 
record of the eligible candidates besides being called for interview to 
H adjudge their merit. 
. • 
U.P. JAL NIGAM v. D.P. SINGH 
121 
Under these circumstances there is no inconsistency between the A 
action taken by the Nigam in implementing the order of this Court and the 
order of the learned Single Judge. It is, however, made clear that any of 
I 
the contentions raised by the respondent/applicant seeking clarification of 
the order would not be an impediment for the C

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