BHAJAN SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

BHAJAN SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

The selection of respondent No.4 as Managing Director was faulty and set aside because the pending charge-sheets against him were not disclosed to, or considered by, the Selection Committee. This non-disclosure was a breach of Rule 5 of the 2011 Rules, and failure to follow the law laid down in Jankiraman's case. Integrity and merit could not be accurately assessed. The consequence is that the selection/appointment is set aside and respondent No.4 is reverted to his earlier substantive position.

Parties
Appellant: Bhajan Singh; Respondent No.1: State of Uttarakhand; Respondent No.2: Uttarakhand Peyjal Sanshadhan Vikas Avam Nirman Nigam; Respondent No.3: Principal Secretary (Chairman, Nigam); Respondent No.4 (selected Managing Director): [Name not specified in text]
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal by Supreme Court, Against Division Bench Judgment of Uttarakhand High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Managing Director set aside; writ petition granted; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Selection and Promotion in Public Corporations, Suppression of Material Facts, Departmental Proceedings and Sealed Cover Procedure, Integrity and Eligibility for Promotion
Service Law Administrative Law Public Employment Selection and Promotion in Public Corporations Suppression of Material Facts Departmental Proceedings and Sealed Cover Procedure Integrity and Eligibility for Promotion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhajan Singh

Appellant

State of Uttarakhand

Respondent No.1

Uttarakhand Peyjal Sanshadhan Vikas Avam Nirman Nigam

Respondent No.2

Principal Secretary (Chairman, Nigam)

Respondent No.3

[Name not specified in text]

Respondent No.4 (selected Managing Director)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal by Supreme Court, Against Division Bench Judgment of Uttarakhand High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the selection of respondent No.4 as Managing Director was vitiated due to non-disclosure of pending charge-sheets to the Selection Committee.
  2. 2 Whether Rule 5 of Uttarakhand Peyjal Sanshadhan Vikas Avam Nirman Nigam (The Post of Managing Director) Rules, 2011, was breached.
  3. 3 Whether the integrity and suitability for promotion can be properly assessed in absence of disclosure of relevant material.

Ratio Decidendi

The selection of respondent No.4 as Managing Director was faulty and set aside because the pending charge-sheets against him were not disclosed to, or considered by, the Selection Committee. This non-disclosure was a breach of Rule 5 of the 2011 Rules, and failure to follow the law laid down in Jankiraman's case. Integrity and merit could not be accurately assessed. The consequence is that the selection/appointment is set aside and respondent No.4 is reverted to his earlier substantive position.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Managing Director set aside; writ petition granted; costs awarded.

Orders

  • The selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Managing Director is set aside.
  • Respondent No.4 to be placed in the position prior to his selection as Managing Director.