NARSING PRASAD versus ANIL KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

NARSING PRASAD versus ANIL KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

The High Court erred in directing that seniority alone entitled the respondent to officiate as Chief Engineer without consideration of merit and suitability, as required by the Regulations. Appointments, even on officiating basis, require adherence to statutory procedures, namely constitution of a selection committee by the Board which considers all eligible candidates. Until regular selection is possible, status quo should be maintained with appellant continuing to hold charge, pending proper selection committee decision.

Parties
Appellant: Narsing Prasad; Respondent: Anil Kumar Jain
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment in Writ Petition
Outcome
appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Appointment to Post of Chief Engineer, Officiating Charge, Seniority Versus Merit, Selection Procedure
Service Law Appointment to Post of Chief Engineer Officiating Charge Seniority Versus Merit Selection Procedure

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Narsing Prasad

Appellant

Anil Kumar Jain

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment in Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in directing that the senior-most person in the feeding cadre was entitled to hold the charge of Chief Engineer unless there is any legal impediment.
  2. 2 Whether the appointment made by the Parishad followed the proper selection procedure under relevant regulations.
  3. 3 Whether regular promotion can be conducted given Supreme Court's status quo order.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in directing that seniority alone entitled the respondent to officiate as Chief Engineer without consideration of merit and suitability, as required by the Regulations. Appointments, even on officiating basis, require adherence to statutory procedures, namely constitution of a selection committee by the Board which considers all eligible candidates. Until regular selection is possible, status quo should be maintained with appellant continuing to hold charge, pending proper selection committee decision.

Court Disposition

appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court quashing the officiating appointment set aside.
  • Direction to constitute selection committee by the Board within four weeks to consider suitability of all eligible candidates for officiating charge.