U.P. JAL NIGAM & ORS. versus AJIT SINGH PATEL & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 804 · Decided: 15-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
U.P. JAL NIGAM & ORS.
v.
AJIT SINGH PATEL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11017-11018 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 15, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Art. 136 – Special Leave Petition – Maintainability of – Order
(dated 11.8.2017) of competent authority of appellant, declaring
appointment of 122 candidates as void ab initio – Challenged in writ
petition – High Court by order dated 28.11.2017 set aside the  order
dated 11.8.2017 holding that the authority failed to record the
foundational fact that it was not possible to distinguish tainted and
untainted cases; that there was possibility of all the candidates
getting benefit of irregularities and that termination of appointments
was without giving any opportunity of hearing to the concerned
appointees – In appeal to Supreme Court, by order dated 16.3.2018
liberty was granted to the appellants to approach the High Court
for an order to re-work the answer-sheets on the basis of the
corrections – Pursuant to the liberty granted, appellants filed Review
Petition before High Court – Review Petition was disposed of by
order dated 25.7.2018 granting liberty to the appellants to segregate
tainted and untainted candidates – Appeal against the orders of
High Court dated 28.11.2017 and 25.7.2018 – Plea against
maintainability of the appeal – Held: Appeal against order dated
28.11.2017 was not permissible as the judgment when challenged
on earlier occasion, therein Supreme Court had not granted any
liberty to challenge that judgment of the High Court afresh –
Supreme Court had also not granted liberty to the appellants to
challenge the conclusion of High Court in the review application –
Appellants must in the first place act upon the decision dated
28.11.2017 by passing a fresh reasoned order taking into account
previous inquiry reports and other relevant material – Therefore,
challenge to the impugned judgments dated 28.11.2017 and
25.7.2018 must fail.
804
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 804
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
805
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1. Upon reading the order dated 16th March, 2018
and/or along with the order dated 20th August, 2018, passed by
Supreme Court, it is amply clear that the liberty granted to the
appellants was very limited. It posits that no other contention
was kept open or could be raised in the review application or in
any subsequent proceedings before this Court. As no liberty had
been granted to the appellants to challenge the judgment of the
High Court dated 28th November, 2017 afresh, it would mean
that the appellants can pursue the Special Leave petition only
against the decision of the High Court in review application, which
the High Court had rejected for the reasons recorded in its order
dated 25th July, 2018. In absence of such liberty to the appellants,
filing of fresh special leave petition against the self-same judgment
is not permissible. [Para 10][818-C-E]
Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa and Others (2012) 12
SCC 378 : [2012] 8  SCR 1089; Kumaran Silks Trade
(P) Ltd.. (2) v. Devendra and Others (2006) 8 SCC 555
: [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 670; Sandhya Educational
Society and Another v. Union of India and Others
(2014) 7 SCC 701 – relied on.
2. The judgment of the High Court in review application is
a benign one and is certainly not more adverse to the appellants.
For, the High Court has restated the dictum in its judgment dated
28th November, 2017 - that it would be open to the appellants to
separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones and to
pass a fresh, reasoned order after providing opportunity to the
affected candidates. The High Court has also clarified that the
order passed by the Chief Engineer dated 11th August, 2017 has
been quashed on the sole ground that it was hit by principles of
natural justice, having been passed without issuing notice and
affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned candidates and
also because the said order does not refer to the fact that an
exercise was already undertaken by the appellants to distinguish
the case of tainted and untainted candidates and arrived at the
conclusion that it was not possible to do so, before issuing the
impugned order dated 11th August, 2017. [Para 11][818-F-H;
819-A]
U.P. JAL NIGAM & ORS. v. AJIT SINGH PATEL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
3. The opinions given by the experts (Indian Institute of
Information Technology, Allahabad and Indian Institute of
Techn

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