In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a judgement on the case involving the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and the first respondent. The court has quashed the Municipal Commissioner’s order dated 28 August 2002, bringing relief to the parties involved. Stay updated on the latest legal developments with this important ruling. #SupremeCourt #LegalJudgement #QuashedOrder
Facts
- The first respondent was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Engineering Department of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation on 27 July 1985.
- A final seniority list of diploma holding engineers was published with the first respondent shown as a Sectional Engineer as of 1 January 1995.
- Recruitment rules for various posts in the Municipal Corporation were approved by the State government under a Government Resolution dated 16 May 1994.
- The first respondent was transferred to the Planning Department on a temporary basis as a Planning Assistant on 11 May 1988 and later confirmed as a Town Planner on 24 May 1999.
- The Municipal Commissioner issued a final seniority list deleting the first respondent’s name due to belonging to a separate department, but this decision was later overturned by the High Court in a review petition.
- The first respondent’s reversion to the post of Sectional Engineer, after being transferred to the Water Supply Department, was challenged before the High Court.
- Several seniority lists published between 1982 and 1992 showed the first respondent’s promotions and positions within the Municipal Corporation.
- A provisional seniority list of Deputy Engineers in which the first respondent was listed was published on 13 August 2002, with objections raised.
- Various orders, transfers, promotions, and challenges regarding the first respondent’s positions and seniority lists led to the present appeals being heard by the Court.
- The Municipal Corporation challenged the High Court’s order on various grounds.
- The Municipal Corporation argued that a review was not maintainable after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on 29 September 2003.
- The High Court rejected the writ petition and mentioned the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court on 17 October 2003.
- The Municipal Corporation accepted the order in the review and presented submissions on the merits of the petition.
- The review petition was rejected, leading the Municipal Corporation to move the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings
Arguments
- Mr. Singh argued that the High Court decision dated 3 August 2001 did not affect the appointment of the first respondent as Town Planner.
- The appointment of the first respondent in the Town Planning Department since 1988 was not questioned, as confirmed by the seniority lists from July 1989.
- On 27 August 2002, the Municipal Commissioner clarified that the first respondent would be removed from the Engineering Department seniority list as he belonged to the Town Planning Department.
- Despite this clarification, the next day, the Municipal Commissioner reverted the first respondent without giving him a chance to be heard.
- Mr. Singh contended that a review petition was permissible since the order from the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition was non-speaking.
- The first respondent was not involved in the writ proceedings related to promotions in the Engineering Department.
- The first respondent was promoted to Assistant Town Planner after five years as per a Government Order dated 7 July 1997 and then as Town Planner on 29 June 1998.
- Mr. C.U. Singh argued that the earlier proceedings in Writ Petition No 2156/1988 did not impact the appointment or promotion of the first respondent as Town Planner.
Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent
Analysis
- Leave was not granted for the Special Leave Petition filed by the first respondent.
- No reasons were expressed indicating that the High Court’s view was affirmed by this Court.
- It is assumed that a review petition was permissible based on the outcome of the Special Leave Petition.
- The Municipal Commissioner’s order of 28 August 2002 was flawed due to a fundamental error.
- The first respondent was reverted from the post of Town Planner without due process, which is a significant prejudice.
- The reversion was made without providing a notice to show-cause or an opportunity to be heard, contravening the law.
- In light of the current position, the aforementioned grounds may not need to be further examined.
- The lack of entertainment of the Special Leave Petition by this Court signifies the necessity of being heard before passing a reversion order.
- The order of 9 reversion has been set aside, allowing the Municipal Corporation to pursue remedies as per law.
- The reasons in the impugned decision of the High Court are not binding or an adjudication of the parties’ rights and contentions.
- In case of action by the Municipal Corporation, a time schedule is set for the process, ensuring early completion to avoid uncertainty for the first respondent.
- The first respondent can initiate steps within two months and complete the process within four months from today.
- The High Court need not have explored various facets in the decision, making it unnecessary for this Court to discuss those reasons.
- The order passed by the Municipal Commissioner on 28 August 2002 is quashed and set aside due to a violation of principles of natural justice.
Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis
Decision
- 1.1
- The order of the Municipal Commissioner dated 28 August 2002 is quashed and set aside.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
- The appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
- The court orders accordingly.
Case Title: AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR. ITS COMMISSIONER ETC. Vs. JAYANT S/O SARVOTTAMRAO KHARWADKAR ETC. .
Case Number: C.A. No.-008908-008910 / 2019
