caselaws.org

Supreme Court of India
Shripal Bhati vs State Of Up on 29 January, 2020Author: Krishna Murari

Bench: N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, Krishna Murari

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 802 OF 2020
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 9276 OF 2017)

SHRIPAL BHATI & ANR. ….. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ….. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the High

Court1 dated 08.02.2017 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the

appellants laying a challenge to the appointment of respondent no. 4 on

the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation in New Okhla

Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘NOIDA’)

and his subsequent absorption.
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2020.01.29
16:15:12 IST
Reason:

1
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
Page 1 of 16
3. The appellants are presently posted as Assistant Project Engineer

(Electrical) in NOIDA.

4. On a request made by respondent no. 4, who was employed as a

Sub-Divisional Officer with U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., seeking

appointment on a vacant post of Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA,

State Government, vide letter dated 13.02.2014 required the NOIDA to

appoint him on the said post on deputation for a period of three years.

In pursuance to the aforesaid letter, an appointment order dated

19.02.2014 was issued by NOIDA and respondent no 4 was permitted

to join the said post. Subsequently vide letter dated 16.02.2015,

respondent no. 2 made a recommendation to respondent no. 1 for

absorption of respondent no. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants

approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition praying, inter-alia,

for:-

(i) Quashing the recommendation letter dated 16.02.2015 for

absorption.

(ii) Quashing letter dated 19.02.2014 appointing respondent no 4

on deputation on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical).

(iii) Commanding the respondents to fill up the post of Project

Engineer in accordance with Service Rules and to restrain

respondent no. 4 from functioning as Project Engineer

(Electrical) in NOIDA.
Page 2 of 16
5. During the pendency of Writ Petition before the High Court,

respondent no. 4 was absorbed on the post of Project Engineer

(Electrical) vide order dated 07.05.2015, issued by the respondent no.1.

This order was challenged in the Writ Petition by way of an amendment

application which was allowed by the High Court.

6. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.02.2017, the High Court

dismissed the Writ Petition.

7. The core issue which arises for our consideration is whether the

recruitment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Project Engineer

(Electrical) on deputation and his subsequent absorption on the said

post is permissible under NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981.

8. Incidentally another issue which arises is whether the appellants

are eligible for being promoted to the post on which respondent no. 4

has been appointed and whether the appellant’s right of promotion gets

eclipsed by absorption of respondent no. 4 and in case the appellants

were not found eligible for promotion whether any challenge to

appointment or absorption of respondent no. 4 would be maintainable at

their behest.

Page 3 of 16
9. NOIDA was constituted by the State Government by means of

notification issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Development

Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1976’) enacted by the State

legislature to provide for constitution of an authority for development of

certain areas in the State, into Industrial and Urban Township.

10. Section 5 of the Act of 1976 vests with the Authority the power to

appoint officers/employees for performance of its functions including

determining their grades and designations subject to control/restrictions

of the State Government through general/special orders. Section 19 of

the Act of 1976 vests with the Authority the power to make regulations

with the previous approval of the State Government.

11. In exercise of powers vested under Section 19 of the Act of 1976,

NOIDA has framed the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1981

Regulations’) to govern the conditions of service of conditions of its

employees. Regulation 16 of 1981 Regulations provides for sources of

recruitment to all posts. The same reads as under :-

“ Section 16 – Sources of Recruitment
16. (1) Recruitment to any post under the Authority may be
made from any of the sources –
(a) by direct recruitment;
(b) by promotion from amongst the employees occupying post
carrying a lower scale through a departmental test or an

Page 4 of 16
interview of selection or in any other manner specified by the
Authority.
(c) by deputation or re-employment or on contractual basis.
(d) from any other source as approved by the Authority.
(2) (i) Sixty six percent of Group ‘A’ posts shall be filled in by
direct recruitment and the remaining thirty four percent posts
shall be filled in by promotion from amongst the employees upon
the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit and
fulfillment of the requisite qualifications and also subject to the
condition of the particular employee having worked for at least a
period of two years on a post carrying scale of pay next below. If
at any time it is found that sufficient number of employees are
not available for filling in the percentage prescribed for
promotion such posts may be filled in by direct recruitments;
(ii) Various posts falling under Group ‘B’ will be filled in such a
way as to ensure that fifty percent of the posts are filled in the
promotion from amongst the employees and such promotion
shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of
the unfit and fulfillment of the requisite qualifications and also
subject to the condition of the particular employee having
worked on a carrying the scale of pay next below for a period of
at least two years;
(iii) Posts under Group ‘C carrying lowest scale of pay shall be
filled in to the extent of twenty five percent by promotion from
amongst the employees belonging to the Group ‘D’ on the basis
of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit and fulfillment of
the requisite qualifications and also subject to the condition of
the particular employee having worked on a post carrying a
scale of pay next below for at least a period of two years. The
remaining seventy five percent of such posts shall be filled in by
direct recruitment;
(iv) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained the
Authority shall have full power to modify the source of
recruitment or the percentage of promotion or direct recruitment
in relation to any posts or class of posts.”

12. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that

since Clause 16 (2) provides that 60% of Group ‘A’ posts are to be filled

Page 5 of 16
in by direct recruitment and remaining 34% by way of promotion from

amongst the existing employees on the basis of seniority, the post of

Project Engineer (Electrical) which is a Group ‘A’ post could not have

been filled in by way of deputation and thus the appointment of

respondent no. 4 on the said post on deputation is illegal and directly in

the teeth of Service Regulations.

13. The argument is based on an isolated reading of Regulation 16(2)(i)

which is impermissible. It is well settled that a provision is required to

be read in whole and not in part and in isolation to the other parts of the

provision. The entire provision is required to be read out harmoniously .

Regulation 16 (i) (c) clearly provides that recruitment to any post under

the Authority can be made by deputation. If the provisions of Regulation

16 are to be read in a manner suggested by learned counsel for the

appellant it would render Clause 16 (i) (c) totally redundant. It is well

settled principle of law that any particular portion of provision cannot be

read in isolation in a manner so as to render the other part of the same

provision totally redundant. Similar situations exist under Clause 16 (2)

(ii) and (iii) providing for appointment on post falling under Group ‘B’ and

‘C’ . If the provisions of Regulation 16 are read in the mode and manner

suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, the provisions of

Section 16 (i) (c) would be rendered totally redundant in respect of posts

falling under Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ as well. Regulation 16 is intended to
Page 6 of 16
provide the modes of recruitment and combined reading of the entire

regulations makes it amply clear that an appointment to a post falling

either under Group ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ can very well be made on deputation.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that NOIDA

had formulated a Recruitment and Promotion Policy in the year 1993,

wherein the mode of recruitment provided was by way of promotion,

direct recruitment and deputation. Subsequently another Recruitment

and Promotion Policy was framed in 2005, which provided that the post

of Project Engineer in the Engineering cadre was required to be filled in

100% by promotion. Thus, the three sources of recruitment

contemplated in the 1993 Policy were reduced to one source in the

2005 and thus thereafter no recruitment could have been made on the

post Project Engineer by way of deputation.

15. In the counter affidavit filled on behalf of the NOIDA, it has been

stated that the Recruitment and Promotion Policy, 2005 was sent for

approval of the State Government. Vide letter dated 18.10.2007, the

State Government while clarifying that the Board is competent to frame

its Recruitment and Promotion Policy directed the NOIDA to ensure that

Policy is not inconsistent with the provisions of Regulations, 1981. It is

the specific case setup by NOIDA in its counter affidavit that the Policy

could not be implemented in view of the directions issued by the State
Page 7 of 16
Government, since the proposal to do away with direct recruitment to

Group ‘A’ posts and to fill them only on the basis of promotion was

inconsistent with the NOIDA Service Regulations 16 (i) (c) of the 1981

Regulations. In view of the specific case setup by NOIDA that the

Policy of 2005 was never implemented being inconsistent with the 1981

Regulations and that no part of Regulation 16 of 1981 Regulations has

been amended till date, the reliance placed by the appellants upon the

2005 Policy is completely misplaced and erroneous. Regulation 16 as it

stands (quoted hereinabove) that holds field with regard to source of

recruitment in the Authority. The State Government has taken the same

stand in its counter affidavit.

16. Now coming to the issue of absorption of respondent no. 4

Regulation no. 16 of 1981 expressly provides that recruitment can be

made either by deputation or direct recruitment or from any other

source. Regulation 2 deals with applicability of these Regulations and

expressly provides for posting/recruitment on deputation basis and

absorption of such persons in the service of NOIDA. It may be useful to

extract Regulation no. 2 which reads as under:-

“2. These regulations shall apply to every whole time employee
of the Authority except a person working with the Authority on
deputation from the Union Government or any State
Government or a Local Authority or a Corporation or any other
organization, by whatever name called, and such a person
shall continue to be governed by the rules applicable to him in
relation to his service under his parent department or
organization, by whatever name called unless such person is

Page 8 of 16
absorbed in the service of the Authority as a regular
employee.”

17. The decision to absorb respondent no. 4 was taken by the State

Government exercising the powers under the U.P. Absorption Rules,

1984 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of the

Constitution of India. Rule 5 of the U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984

provides that any Government servant may be permitted to be absorbed

in the services of undertaking in which the employee is on deputation, if

he applied to the Government for his absorption in the undertaking

before expiry of three years from the date of commencement of his

deputation or before the date on which he attains the age of 53 years

whichever is earlier and the undertaking concerned also moved the

Government for his absorption within such period and the Government

agrees to such absorption in public interest.

18. A specific stand has been taken by the State Government as well as

NOIDA in the counter affidavit that the State Government has exercised

the power under the U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984 by issuing orders of

absorption of respondent no. 4 in the NOIDA.

19. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent no. 4 was

employee of erstwhile U.P. Power Corporation which is not a

government department hence he was not a government employee and

Page 9 of 16
thus could not be absorbed in the service of NOIDA under the

Absorption Rules, 1984 as the said Rules are applicable only in the

case of a government employee. No doubt respondent no.4 was not a

government servant and Absorption Rules are applicable only to a

government servant, but the issue need not detain us for the reason that

there are another set of Rules known as “Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut

Parishad Ke Sewako Ka Sashan Evam Anya Upkarmo Me Samvilayan

Viniyam 1987” (hereinafter referred to as ‘1987 Regulations’), which is a

Statutory Regulation framed under the provisions of Section 79(c) of

Electricity Supply Act, 1948, whereunder the employees of corporation

can be absorbed in the service of State Government or in other

undertakings of Government or corporations in the same manner as

employees of the Government can be absorbed under Absorption

Rules, 1984.

20. Reference at this stage may be made to provisions of Section 5 of the

Act of 1976 which reads as under :-

“ 5 Staff of the Authority –
(1) Subject to such control and restrictions as may be determined
by general or special orders of the State Government,
Authority may appoint such member of officers and
employees as may be necessary for performance of its
functions and may determine its grades and designations.
(2) Subject as aforesaid the officers and other employees of
Authority shall be entitled to receive from the funds of the
Authority, such salaries and allowances and shall be
governed by such other conditions of service as may be
agreed upon with the Authority.”

Page 10 of 16
21. From a perusal of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the power of

appointment of officers and employees lies with the Authority subject to

such control and restrictions as may be determined by general or

special orders of State Government. Learned counsel for the appellants

failed to place before us any such general or special orders of the State

Government whereunder the power of appointment which includes

power of appointment by deputation is restricted. Contrary thereto,

Regulation 16(1)(c) of 1981 Regulations gives express power to the

NOIDA to make appointment on deputation which is one of source

recognized under the sources of recruitment. Once the deputation as a

source of recruitment is available under the Rules of Recruitment, we do

not see any impediment in assuming the power of absorption of a

deputationist with the Authority by necessary intendment or implication,

under Act of 1976 and 1981 Regulations framed thereunder.

22. Besides this Regulation 80 of 1981 Regulations provides that these

Regulations are subject to the provisions of any Rule made by the State

Government under the Act of 1976 as directions issued by State

Government under Section 41 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development

Act, 1973 or to the provisions of any other law made on the subject by

an Act of Legislature of Uttar Pradesh or the Parliament. Regulation 80

of 1981 Regulations reads as under:-

Page 11 of 16
“80. For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that these
Regulations shall be subject to any Rules made by the State
Government under the Act or any directions issued by the State
Government under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 or to the provisions of any other law
made on the subject by an Act of Legislature of Uttar Pradesh or
the Parliament.

Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act reads as

under:-

“41. Control by State Government :-
(1) The [Authority),the Chairman or the (Vice-Chairman] shall
carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to
time by the State Government for the efficient
administration of this Act.

(2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers and
discharge of its functions by the [Authority, the Chairman or
the Vice-Chairman) under this Act any dispute arises
between the authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman)
and the State Government the decision of the State
Government on such dispute shall be final.

(3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its own
motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the
records of any case disposed of or order passed by the
[Authority or the Chairman) for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or
direction issued and may pass such order or issue such
direction in relation thereto as it may think fit:
Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order
prejudicial to any person without affording such person a
reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(4) Every order of the State Government made in exercise of
the powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not
be called in question in any court.”

Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1976

is applicable to Act of 1976 by virtue of Section 12 of the said Act.

Page 12 of 16
1987 Regulations having been framed under the provisions of

Section 79(c) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948, a parliamentary enactment

authorizing absorption of employees of erstwhile U.P. Power

Corporation in Government undertakings or other Statutory

Corporations, in view of provisions of Section 80 of 1981 Regulations

read with Section 41 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act,

1976, not only respondent no. 2 is bound by every direction issued by

the State Government from time to time, the appointment of respondent

no. 4 in NOIDA on deputation and his subsequent absorption under the

orders of the State Government cannot be faulted with or can be held to

be in violation of 1981 Regulations. The first issue stands answered

accordingly.

23. Question of maintainability of challenge to appointment and subsequent

absorption at the behest of appellants has also been raised by learned

counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3. It is vehemently contended that

appellant lacks requisite necessary qualifications for being considered

for promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) and being

ineligible for promotion any challenge to appointment on the said post at

their behest is not maintainable. It is pointed out that eligibility for

promotion to the post of Project Engineer is Degree in Engineering with

minimum 8 years of experience as Assistant Project Engineer.

Page 13 of 16
24. Specific case set up by NOIDA in its counter affidavit is that appellant

no. 1 was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1987 and was promoted to

the post of Assistant Project Engineer on 27.08.2013. Thus he lacks

necessary qualification of 8 years experience and shall be eligible for

being considered for promotion in 2021. Insofar as appellant no. 2 is

concerned, he was appointed on the post of Assistant Project Engineer

in February, 2009. As prescribed by Service Regulations, he became

eligible for being considered for promotion on completing 8 years of

service in February, 2017. Thus, at the time of appointment of

respondent no. 4 in 2014, and his subsequent absorption in 2015, both

the appellants were not eligible for promotion to the post of Project

Engineer for want of requisite 8 years experience as Assistant Project

Engineer.

25. For the aforesaid facts and reasons the challenge made by the

appellants to the appointment and absorption of respondent no. 4 is not

tenable and they have no locus standi in the matter. It may be relevant

to refer to the observations made by this Court in the case Jasbhai

Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. 2,

relied upon by the High Court, holding that unless injury is suffered

personally a person can not be said to be aggrieved and has no locus

standi.

2
AIR 1976 SC 578
Page 14 of 16
“In the light of above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that
the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right.
He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In
fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision
against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to
something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He
has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a
justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore, he is not a ‘person
aggrieved’ and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of
‘No Objection Certificate’.”

26. There is yet another aspect of the matter liable to be taken into

consideration, undisputedly after absorption of respondent no. 4 in the

NOIDA he was relieved from his parent department and his lien with the

parent department ceased. Considering a somewhat similar controversy

in the case of Jamil Ahmed Vs. Industrial Development

Commissioner and Principal Secretary & Ors. 3, where a Senior

Inspector in Railway Protection Force was initially deputed to NOIDA

and subsequently absorbed, this Court after analysing the provisions of

1981 Regulations while holding the appointment on deputation and

subsequent absorption in NOIDA was permissible, observed that such a

employee can not be put in a position which results in his being an

employee neither of the Authority nor of the parent department. It may

be relevant to reproduce observations made in Paragraph 9 of the

reports.

“On the facts and circumstances of this case, we need not go
in depth into the question sought to be urged on behalf of the
Authority, for, we are of the view that the appellants having
resigned from the Railways and having been absorbed in the
Authority eight years back, can not be put in a position, for no
fault of his, which results in his being an employee neither of
3
2004 (13) SCC 736
Page 15 of 16
the Authority nor of his parent department. The appellant
cannot be made to suffer for the discrepancy, if any, assuming
there is any such deficiency which is now pleaded as a reason
by the Authority.”

27. As a result of our aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this

appeal and the same accordingly stands dismissed with no order as to

costs.

……………………………………….J.
(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

………………………….J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
NEW DELHI;
29TH JANUARY, 2020

Page 16 of 16

Comments

Leave a Reply

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.