The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment regarding the reinstatement of a Junior Accounts Clerk position. The case involved a challenge to the order cancelling the promotion of Shiv Kumar Rai as an Assistant Accountant and its consequences on the appointment of the individual in question. The Court’s decision considered various events and subsequent developments in the case. Stay tuned for more insights on this important legal ruling.
Facts
- The appellant challenged the order dated 11.11.1992 which cancelled the promotion of Shiv Kumar Rai as Assistant Accountant.
- A consequential order reverting Shiv Kumar Rai to his original post was issued on 11.11.1992.
- The petition filed challenging the order dated 11.11.1992 did not inform the court that the order regarding Shiv Kumar Rai had been stayed by the High Court.
- The reversion of Shiv Kumar Rai automatically made the consequential order regarding the appellant inoperative.
- The appellant’s appointment was based on names forwarded by the Employment Exchange, Azamgarh.
- The dismissal of the writ petition on 04.12.1992 related to the appellant’s consequential order and did not impact his claim.
- The order for the appellant to hand over charge was due to Shiv Kumar Rai’s reversion.
- The re-appointment of the appellant until 27.02.1993 was based on Selection Committee recommendations and employment exchange list.
- The appointment was challenged due to procedural irregularities.
- The writ petition dismissal did not affect the appellant’s right to continue in his post.
- The appellant’s appointment was confirmed on various dates, and complaints against him were found baseless.
- Shiv Kumar Rai filed a writ petition against the reversion order dated 11.11.1992, which was dismissed ultimately in 2001, making his reversion final.
- The Order dated 01.01.1993 re-appointed Rana Pratap Singh due to the stay order on Shiv Kumar Rai’s reversion by the High Court.
- The High Court dismissed Shiv Kumar Rai’s writ petition on 15.09.2001 as infructuous, not on merits.
- The Division Bench solely relied on the dismissal of Shiv Kumar Rai’s writ petition in its judgment.
- The High Court had earlier stayed the reversion order for three months in 1992.
- Shiv Kumar Rai’s claim for the post of Junior Accounts Clerk was mentioned in the High Court’s observation during the dismissal of his writ petition.
- The interim order on Shiv Kumar Rai’s case was continued, directing regular salary payment.
Also Read: Case Summary: Supreme Court Judgment on Limitation Act Override
Issue
- The appellant was entitled to continue on his post of Junior Accounts Clerk by virtue of his appointment dated 21.12.1990 due to the interim order dated 27.11.1992 in the writ petition of Shiv Kumar Rai.
- The re-appointment of the appellant on 01.01.1993 was not limited only till 27.02.1993. Thus, after the efflux of the said period, the appellant’s right to continue on the post shall not come to an end.
- The dismissal of W.P.No.44384 of 1992 on 15.09.2001 would not result in terminating the vacancy on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk where the appellant was appointed and working.
- The dismissal of Writ Petition No.Nil of 1992 on 04.12.1992, filed against the consequential order dated 11.11.1992, would not end the appellant’s right to continue on his post.
Also Read: Interpretation of Lease Agreement and Compulsory Registration
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the conduct of the appellant does not warrant any relief.
- It was further contended that the learned Single Judge’s observation that the appellant’s removal became final after the dismissal of the first writ petition was erroneous.
- The subsequent appointment of the appellant was claimed to not survive for consideration before the Court.
Also Read: Legal Interpretation in Light of Section 148 of NI Act: Revisiting Appellants’ Case
Analysis
- The appellant was reinstated in consequence of his earlier appointment dated 21.12.1990.
- The order mentioned the appellant’s promotional scale to Assistant Accountant from 27.02.1993.
- The reversion of Shiv Kumar Rai to Junior Accounts Clerk post led to the termination of the appellant’s services on 11.11.1992.
- The Division Bench should have considered ground realities, facts, and subsequent events.
- The appellant concealed the dismissal of the writ petition from the department.
- The dismissal of the writ petition does not wipe out the appellant’s right to the post of Junior Accounts Clerk.
- The appellant continued on the post even after the dismissal of the writ petition.
- Notification of vacancies to the employment exchange is required as per Rule 22.
- Failure to notify vacancies can result in violation of the rule.
- The purpose of notifying vacancies is to provide equal opportunity for job seekers registered with the employment exchange.
- The Division Bench based its opinion on a particular issue in the case.
- The Division Bench failed to consider subsequent events that took place.
- The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the passage of time.
Decision
- The operation of the order dated 11.11.92 is stayed for a period of three months from today.
- Petitioner is allowed to make necessary amendments in the petition within three days.
- The judgment of the Single Judge dated 02.02.2012 and the Division Bench are set aside.
- Dismissing the writ petition on 04.12.1992 will not affect the petitioner’s right based on the appointment dated 21.12.1990.
- The appeal is allowed.
- Observations made by the Single Judge regarding the appointment were not warranted.
- The dismissal of Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992 on 04.12.1992 does not terminate the appellant’s right to continue in his post.
Case Title: RANA PRATAP SINGH Vs. VITTIYA EVAM LEKHA ADHIKARI DIST. BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER
Case Number: C.A. No.-009220-009220 / 2019
