I.P. Jal
Nigam & Ors Vs. Durga Prasad Singh & Ors [1995] INSC 21 (9 January 1995)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Sen, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (2) 83 1995 SCALE (1)176
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1.We
have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order of the learned SingleJudge
dated 14-1-1993 made in Writ Petition No. 8504 of
1987 with regardto the fourth option mentioned therein is clear which we have
already extracted while allowing the appeal at page 20 of the paper book. Shri
P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant contends that
while following the directions of the learned Single Judge, the Jal Nigam had
constituted a Selection Committee and called the persons for interview which is
not warranted under the order. He states that Regulation 16 of U.P Jal Nigam
Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1977 provides that in
the case of recruitment by selection on the basis of interview alone, the
candidates eligible for recruitment under these regulations are to appear
before the Selection Committee of the Nigam and on the basis of the 84
recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Nigam shall draw up a list of
candidates selected in order of merit.
The
respondents need only to look into the record and not the basis of the
interview. Rule 16 would not apply. The Nigam would, therefore, not be
justified for making selection on the basis of interview. We find no force in
this contention. In view of the fact that the selection is to be made in the
light of option 4 which is now sought to be implemented as per orders of the
learned Single Judge as upheld by this Court, necessarily a Committee has to be
constituted and the Committee as contemplated under Rule 16 has been chosen to
be the forum to consider the record of the eligible candidates besides being
called for interview to adjudge their merit.
2.Under
these circumstances there is no inconsistency between the action taken by the Nigam
in implementing the order of this Court and the order of the learned Single
Judge. It is, however, made clear that any of the contentions raised by the
respondent/applicant seeking clarification of the order would not be an
impediment for the Committee, while considering their cases for selection
fairly and objectively without any prejudice. We hope and trust that the
Committee will do well to consider their cases according to Rules and
Regulations. IA is disposed of accordingly.
Back