YOGESH CHANDRA JOSHI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 02-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

YOGESH CHANDRA JOSHI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Se1vice Law : 
U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975: Section 27. 
c 
. Post:-Creation of-Plior to amendment of S. 27 in1983-Jal Sansthan 
created post of Finance Officer in 1978 without plior approval of State 
Govemment-Employee was promoted as Finance Officer in 1986-But sub-
sequently he was reve1ted on the ground that creation of the post and his 
promotion were i11"egular since p1ior approval of State Govemment was not 
obtained-Validity of-Held, unamended S. 27 does not require plior ap-
D 
proval of State Govemment for creation of post-P1ior approval required only 
after amendment of S.27-HC1ice, creation of post in 1978 was not ir-
regulm~wther p1ior approval of State Govemment is required only in 
respect of posts covered by proviso to S. 27 and not in other case~~T!zerefore, 
the said reversion is invalid. 
The Allahabad Jal Sansthan Samiti created the post of Finance 
Officer by Resolution dated 16.1.1978. The appellant was promoted to this 
E 
post of Finance Ollicer on 7.6.1986 and was confirmed against this post. 
However, in September 1992 the appellant was reverted to the post of 
Accounts Officer on the ground that creation of the post and consec1uent 
F 
promotion were irregular as the Jal Sansthan did not take prior approval 
of the State Government under Section 27 of the U.P. Water Supply and 
Sewerage Act, 1975. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by 
the appellant. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the post of Finance G 
Officer was created on 16.1.1978 under the unamended provisions of the 
Act which did not rec1uire the previous approval of the State Government 
as a condition precedent for creation of the post under the Jal Sansthan 
and, therefore, the High Court erred in considering the provision of 
Section 27 of the Act which was amended in the year 1983. 
H 
371 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Jal Sansthan had full authority for creation of post 
and for appointment of persons to such post on such terms and conditions, 
as it thinks fit. The State Government has not produced any order pur-
ported to have been issued under proviso to unamended Section 27 of the 
B U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 which rec1uired that the post of 
Finance Officer could be created only with prior approval of the State 
Government. The post of Finance Officer was created on 16.1.1978 on 
which date the unamended provision was in force. Therefore, the Jal 
Sansthan was competent to create this post without obtaining prior ap-
C proval of the State Government. The State Government as well as the High 
Court committed gross error in relying upon the amended provisions of 
Section 27, which had no applicati.on during the year 1978. 
D 
E 
[375-G-H; 376-A-B; F; 377-A] 
1.2. It is true that when the appellant was promoted as Finance 
Officer on 7.6.1986 the amended provision of Section 27 of the Act was in 
force and, therefore, the appellant's promotion was to be governed by the 
amended provision. However, there is nothing in the amended provision, 
which requires prior approval of the State Government for appointment 
to the post created in Jal Sansthan. Under amended Section 27, the power 
of Jal Sansthan for appointment is unfettered and does not rec1uire any 
prior approval of the State Government except when the State Government 
frames Rules or order in this behalf, but no such Rules or order have been 
produced in this case. Therefore, the post in question having been duly 
created by the Jal Sansthan under the unamended provisions of Section 
F 27 of the Act and the Jal Sansthan having duly promoted the appellant to 
the said post in the year 1986 under unamended Section 27 (2) of the Act, 
there is no infirmity with the promotion of the appellant. The impugned 
order of reversion being unsustainable is set aside. [377-C-H] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3817 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.93 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 36624 of 1992. 
H 
V.A. Mohta and Manoj Prasad for the Appellant. 
Y.C.JOSHiv. STATE fPATTANAIK,J.J 
373 
Prashant Kumar, Joseph Pookkatt and S. Dave for the Respondents. A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. Appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of 
A

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