RAMENDRA SINGH versus JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS.

RAMENDRA SINGH versus JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS.

The retrospective appointments of sub-overseers as temporary overseers from the date of publication of diploma examination results are invalid and violate Articles 14 and 16 as they affect the seniority of candidates appointed by a selection committee constituted under proper rules. Executive power cannot be exercised to contravene statutory rules or valid procedures, and departmental instructions lack statutory force unless so provided.

Parties
Appellant: Ramendra Singh; Respondent: Jagdish Prasad; Respondent: State of Bihar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 February 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Patna High Court Dated 8th September, 1975, Allowing Writ Petitions in Part
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Seniority, Retrospective Appointment, Executive Power, Public Employment
Service Law Constitutional Law Seniority Retrospective Appointment Executive Power Public Employment

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramendra Singh

Appellant

Jagdish Prasad

Respondent

State of Bihar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Patna High Court Dated 8th September, 1975, Allowing Writ Petitions in Part

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appointments to temporary overseer positions could be made retrospectively affecting seniority
  2. 2 Whether executive power under Article 162 can justify appointments without statutory rules and in contravention of existing procedure
  3. 3 Whether departmental instructions have statutory force affecting appointments and seniority

Ratio Decidendi

The retrospective appointments of sub-overseers as temporary overseers from the date of publication of diploma examination results are invalid and violate Articles 14 and 16 as they affect the seniority of candidates appointed by a selection committee constituted under proper rules. Executive power cannot be exercised to contravene statutory rules or valid procedures, and departmental instructions lack statutory force unless so provided.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.
  • The revised gradation list based on retrospective appointments is invalid and quashed to the extent it affects seniority.