0

Supreme Court on a considered view that,It would be injustice to unsettle the poor,Set aside the order of additional collector and additional commissioner.

CASE TITTLE:SMT. SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERS. V. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

CASE NO:CIVIL APPEAL NO.5539 OF 2012

ORDER ON: May 16, 2024

QUORUM: J.C.T Ravi Kumar. J.Aravind Kumar

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This present appeal challenges the  judgment dated 19.01.2010 Passed in Writ Petition No.1995 of 2010 by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

The facts leading to the present appeal in question is that In the year 1969-70, the khasra plot No.185 inUP was designated as a Panchayat Ghar but later it was declared Unsuitable in 1993. On the request of the village Pradhan a portion of the Said plot was re-assigned for residential use by the Assistant Collector and Subsequently different plots of land in said survey number came to be Allotted to different individuals including the writ petitioners under Section 122-C(i)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.After 13 years, the Secretary, Rampur forwarded a report to the jurisdictional Tehsildar opiningthat the plot had been originally designated as PanchayatGhar, which had been unlawfully allotted for Residential use. Hence, he proposed cancellation of the allotments madeAnd to take possession of the land from all the allottees including writ Petitioners. The Tehsildar in turn forwarded a proposal to the District Magistrate for cancellation of the allotment. This, resulted in show cause notices being Issued to the writ petitioners and same was duly replied by them by filing Objections An application came to be filed by the Petitioners to decide the issue of the limitation as preliminary issue, sinceThe proceedings had been initiated after 13 years from the date of allotment., The Additional Collector arrived At a conclusion that there is no limitation fixed under the Act and Proceeded to reject the application filed. Being aggrieved by the said order the revision petition came to be Filed before the Additional Commissioner which came to be entertained on Merits and dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the writ Petitioners challenged the same in Writ Petition  which Came to be dismissed on two grounds namely,

the revision petition filedWas not maintainable in the teeth of Section 122-C(7); and,

That impugned order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the Additional Collector Over-ruling the objections of the writ petitioners with regard to limitation isCorrect and it was meritless. Hence, this appeal.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 122-C(i)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, talks about the Allotment of land for housing site for members of Scheduled Castes, agricultural labourers, etc.

Section 132 of the uttarpradesh zamindari abolition and land reforms Act, talks about Land in which [bhumidhari]rights shall not accrue.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS:

The Respondents through their counsel Shri Tanmaya Agarwal,has vehemently contended that fraud Vitiates all acts and in the instant case the revenue was empowered under The UPZALR Act to cancel the illegal and fraudulent allotment of land Made in favour of the writ petitioners and as such suit had been instituted For cancellation of allotment for which no limitation has been specified under Section 122-C(6) of UPZALR Act and particularly when the land in Question had been reserved as Panchayat Ghar it would be governed under Section 132 of the UPZALR Act. The counsel also submitted that even Otherwise where a bhumidhar uses the land for a purpose not connected With agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry same would be in Contravention of Section 143 and admittedly no permission had been Procured for the usage of the land for residential purposes as required Under Section 143. Hence, the counsel further contended that the authorities were Within their jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings for cancelling the Allotment and the revenue authorities as well as the High Court had rightly Refused to interfere with the impugned order and rejected The writ petition where under they had sought for the suit being dismissed As barred by limitation. Hence, the counsel prays for rejection of this appeal.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court on Having heard the learned Counsel representing the State, considered records and referred few judicial precedents and observed that, in the report submitted by the Tehsildar to the District Magistrate, it has been stated therein that subject land had been Preserved for Panchayat Ghar and it is based on the information furnished By the peshkar working in the office Sub-District Magistrate who is said to Have intimated that the file does not bear the signature of the then SubDistrict Magistrate and the Tehsildar is also said to have found certain Irregularities.The court observed that the words, on the basis of such presumedirregularities He has jumped to the conclusion that allotment was irregular, against law And approval of allotment was on the basis of forged signature of SubDistrict Magistrate. However,the court further observed that on  the basis of such conclusion,the court observed that the  report is silent.In this background, the court is of the considered View thatthe Order impugned herein cannot be sustained. The court also made it clear that though the power of the Collector is Available to initiate suo moto action for cancellation of allotment underSub-section (6) of Section 122-C in case of fraud and the court is of the considered view that impugned order as well as the orders Impugned before the writ court would not be sustainable. Yet another factor which has swayed into the courts mind to quash the Impugned order is the fact that pursuant to the allotment made the allottees who are poor rustic villagers have constructed Their houses and the allotment was made based on the approval granted by The then Sub-District Magistrate and they have been residing in the Residential buildings so constructed by them for the last several years and To unsettle the same would result in heaping injustice to those poor hapless Persons and particularly when the subject land has been utilized for Allotment to the poor and houseless persons. The court For the cumulative reasons afore-stated, allowed the appeal and set asside the Impugned order Passed by Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner, (Administration) Moradabad Division  subject to Observation made herein above.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

judgement reviewed by: Sowmya.R

click here to view judgement

0

Supreme Court: Even if the plea of limitation is Not set up as a defence, the Court has to dismiss the suit if it is Barred by limitation.

CASE TITTLE:S. SHIVRAJ REDDY(DIED)THR HIS LRS. AND Anr V S. RAGHURAJ REDDY AND OTHERS

CASE NO: CIVIL APPEAL OF 2024(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 23143-23144 of 2016)

ORDER ON: May 16, 2024

QUORUM: J. B.R. GAVAI and J.SANDEEP MEHTA

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present appeal is preferred for assailing the judgment Dated 27th March, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.

The facts leading to the present appeal in question is that, Respondent/plaintiff, along with defendants And deceased M. Balraj Reddyhad constituted a partnership firm, namely “M/s Shivraj Reddy & Brothers. Further Respondent/plaintiff instituted original suit, Seeking relief of dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts,wherein, The learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowed the original suit filed by respondent/plaintiff and passed a decreedeclaring the firm to be Dissolved and directed defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to tender accounts of The firm from the year 1979 onwards till October, 1998 and Further, granted liberty to respondent/plaintiff to file a Separate application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for taking accounts of the firm and for other Appropriate reliefs.Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 and 2  preferred Appeal before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.wherein, the Learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment Allowed Appeal on the ground that the earlier case was barred by limitation as one of the partners in Subsisting partnership firm, Shri M. Balraj Reddy expired in 1984, Therefore the firm stood dissolved immediately on the death of the Partner. Since the original suit was filed in 1996, it was barred by Limitation. Aggrieved by the decision of learned Single Judge, respondent/plaintiff preferred LPA before the learned Division Bench of the High Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated passed by the Learned Single Judge, observing That the plea of limitation was never raised during the pleadings in The trial Court and learned Single Judge ought not to have dealt With that issue at all. Being aggrieved, appellants have preferred The present appeal by special leave.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932 talks about Dissolution on the happening of certain contingencies

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEANT:

The appellant through their counsel urged that the Suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff for dissolution of thefirm and for the rendition of accounts in the year 1996.The counsel further referred to the partnership deed dated 25th April, 1978, Whereby submitted that the firmwas constituted and urged at a partnership at will. The counsel also drew the attention Of the Court to Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932, Further the counsel submitted that as per Section 42(c) of the Act, the death of a partner leads to automatic dissolution of the Firm.the counsel submitted that Shri M. Balraj Reddy i.e. Partner No. 3 in The firm admittedly expired in the year 1984 and consequent to his Death, the firm stood dissolved automatically. The counsel further urged that it is settled law that it is the duty of theCourt to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period of Limitation, although limitation has not been set up as a defenceAnd thus, the learned Division Bench erred in allowing LPA  and interfering with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis that the plea Of limitation was never raised during the pleadings and thus, the counsel On these grounds, urged Thatthe decree passed by the Learned trial Court to dissolve the firm and Directing the partners to tender the accounts being  upheld is ex facie Illegal, and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The Respondent through their counsel submitted that there is documentary Evidence on record to show that the firm continued To exist and its business activities continued even after the death Of Shri M. Balraj Reddy. The counsel therefore, urged that the contentions Put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants that the firm Stood dissolved automatically on the death of Shri M. Balaraj Reddy is misconceived. The counsel  further contended that the issue of limitation was never Raised before the trial Court and thus, the same could not have Been allowed to be taken at the first appellate stage. On these Grounds, the counsel sought dismissal of the appeal.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court on giving thoughtful consideration to the Submissions advancedand having gone through the Impugned judgment and the material placed on record.The court opined that theReasoning given by the learned Division Bench while dismissing LPA, that the learned Single Judge ought not to have considered the question of limitation as the defendants did Not choose to raise the plea of limitation in the trial Court is erroneous.The court further opined that  Law in this regard has been settled by this Court Through a catena of decisions. Therefore, the court also  referedjudicial precedents and Thus, the court observed that it is a settled law that even if the plea of limitation is Not set up as a defence, the Court has to dismiss the suit if it is Barred by limitation.The court also observed thefact that the firm was a partnership at will, is not in dispute. It Is also not disputed that one of the partners of the firm, namely,Shri M. Balraj Reddy expired in the year 1984. This event leaves No room for doubt that the partnership would stand dissolved Automatically on the death of the partner as per Section 42(c) of The Act, The court further observed that  A fervent pleathat the firm continued to exist even after the death Of Shri M. Balraj Reddy, and the business activities were continued By the firm.therefore the court opined that, Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Partners were carrying on the business activities after the death of Shri M. Balraj Reddy, there cannot be any doubt that the firm Stood dissolved automatically in the year 1984 as mandated under Section 42(c) of the Act unless and until there was a contract Between the remaining partners of the firm to the contrary. The court further observed that There Is of course, no such averment by the respondents, further business Activities even if carried on by the remaining partners of the firm after the death of Shri M. Balraj Reddy, would be deemed to be Carried in their individual capacity in the circumstances noted Above.The court opined that the period of limitation for filing a suit for rendition of Account is three years from the date of dissolution.Hence in  the present Case, the firm dissolved in year 1984 by virtue of death of Shri M. Balraj Reddy and thus, the suit could only have been instituted Within a period of three years from that event. Indisputably, the Suit came to be filed in the year 1996 and was clearly time-barred, Therefore,the court opined that  learned Single Judge was justified in accepting theAppeal and rejecting the suit as being Hopelessly barred by limitation. As a consequence, the court opined that the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench in LPAdoes not Stand to scrutiny and the court hereby reversed and set aside, the court further allowed the appeal accordingly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

judgement reviewed by: Sowmya.R

click here to view judgement

0

Impleading the appellant as a legal representative would change the nature of the suit:Delhi High Court.

CASE TITTLE:K JEEVAN RITA MURTHY .V. SARABJIT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) & ANR.

CASE NO: FAO(OS) 67/2024 & C.M.Nos.27890-27894/2024

ORDER ON:10th May, 2024

QUORUM:J.MS.MANMEET, J.PRITAM SINGH ARORA

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Present appeal in question has been filed challenging the impugned judgement Dated 15th January, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge,  Wherein an  application was filed by the appellant for Substitution as a legal representative of the deceased defendant which was dismissed. The appellant further challenged the order  passed by the learned Single Judge which was also dismissed, latee the review petition was filed by the appellant Challenging the order was also dismissed. Hence present appeal.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925:talks about as to when the Right as executor or legatee be established, i.e No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the will annexed.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEANT:

Learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that the learned Single Judge had Erred in allowing the application filed by Mr. Ved Vyas on behalf of the alleged legal heirs for substitution as legal Representatives of the deceased defendant without there being any proof of the same. The counsel further submitted,  that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing IA  filed by the appellant seeking substitution as a legal Representative of the deceased defendant by failing to consider that firstly, The apellant had already filed Test Case seeking Letters of Administration in her favour on the basis of the Will executed by the Deceased defendant and secondly, that the appellant had been living in the Suit property with deceased defendant since prior to his death and has Continued to live.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court on being  perused the paper book, the Court opined that the Subject suit has been filed by the respondent /plaintiff for recovery of Possession of the suit property claiming himself to be the owner of the suit Property by virtue of documents including a will dated 15th March, 1982, Executed by the deceased defendant. On the other hand, the court observed that the appellant is claiming to have become the Owner of the suit property on the basis of an unregistered will dated 08th November, 2021 executed in her favour by the deceased defendant. Thus, The court observed that the appellant is claiming substitution as a legal representative of the Deceased defendant as his legatee on the basis of a will whose genuineness is Yet to be established and proved. (Re: Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925).This Court is in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge That impleading the appellant as a legal representative of the deceased Defendant would change the nature of the suit from a suit for possession to a suit for determination of title inter se the appellant and deceased defendant’s Alleged legal heirs under Class-II, which would exceed the scope of the Subject suit. Consequently, the court dismissed  the present appeal along with the applications.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

judgement reviewed by:Sowmya.R

Click here to view judgement

0

Supreme court rulings: No subsequent pleading to the Written statement of a defendant can be presented except by the Leave of the Court.

CASE TITTLE: SHEIKH NOORUL HASSAN V NAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH & ORS

CASE NO:CIVIL APPEAL N0. 1389 OF 2024

ORDER ON: May 8, 2024

QUORUM: J.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, J. Manoj Misra

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Manipur at Imphal dated 14.03.2023,

The fact that led to the appeal in question is that the first respondent filed an election petition seeking a Declaration that the election of the returned candidate, Namely, the appellant herein, is null and void under Section 100(1) (d) (i) (ii) and (iv); and  Section 100 (1) (b) of The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. In addition, thereto, A prayer was made to declare the election petitioner as duly Elected from the concerned legislative constituency of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. the election petition, alleged, that The returned candidate had failed to make necessary Disclosures in the nomination paper. In Support of that allegation, particulars of such non-disclosure/ incorrect disclosure were detailed in the election petition. These allegations, however, were not only traversed in the Written statement filed by the returned candidate (i.e. the Appellant herein) but additional facts were also laid out therein. As a result, the election petitioner filed an application seeking leave to file a replication, which came to be allowed by The impugned order of the High Court. Hence this petition

LEGAL ISSUES:

Whether during the course of the proceeding of an Act,subsequent pleading, as envisaged in Order VIII Rule 9CPC, is permissible? If yes, in what circumstances leave to file Such subsequent pleading may be granted by an Election Tribunal/ Court?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

  • Section 100 of The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951: high courts power to declare the election as void
  • Section 87of the representation of people act 1951: procedure before the High court

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEANT:

The counsel Mr. Shyam Divan appearing for the appellant, submitted That the remedy of an election petition is a statutory Remedy governed by the provisions of the 1951 Act. There is No provision in the 1951 Act for filing a replication in response to a written statement. Hence, there is no foundation in law For the impugned order, the counsel further submitted that the Election petitioner’s replication is barred by the Provisions of section 814 (1) of the 1951 Act as it sets out a time limit of 45 days for filing an election petition. Taking into consideration new allegations introduced through a replication would be tantamount to entertaining a time-barred Petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The counsel Mr. Anupam Lal Das, appearing on behalf of respondent, submitted that, Section 87 of the 1951 Act provides that, An election petition shall be tried by the High Court in Accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A written statement can Be rebutted under Order VIII Rule 97 of the CPC. Therefore, it Is incorrect to state that filing of a replication in the Proceedings of an election petition has no legal basis.therefore the counsel further submitted that  No new case has been introduced by way of the Replication. Though, by way of rebuttal of few paragraph in written statement,

Which introduced new facts, by way of Clarification / amplification of earlier pleading, have been Pleaded, which is permissible in law. These include: (a) details

Of bank accounts; (b) details of tax demands/liability; and (c) Ownership of vehicle, which are referred to in the original Petition.hence the counsel submitted that  The replication only seeks to rebut the explanation Offered in the written statement in respect of those accounts, Demands and the vehicle.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

Having taken note of the rival submissions, the court Considered the provisions of CPC and observed that, no pleading subsequent to the Written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence To set off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the Leave of the Court.Further The court looked at the provisions of the 1951 Act in respect of addressing disputes regarding elections, subsiquently following judicial decisions were also refered,

  • Anant Construction (P) Ltd. V. Ram Niwas
  • Bachhaj Nagar v. Nilima Mandal and Anr
  • Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and Ors.
  • E Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi
  • A. Sapa and others v. Singora And others
  • Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh

In reference to the above judicial precedents and analysis over the 1951 act, the court is  of the view that by Virtue of the provisions of Section 87 (1) of the 1951 Act, the High Court, acting as an Election Tribunal, subject to the Provisions of the 1951 Act and the rules made thereunder, is Vested with all such powers as are vested in a civil court under The CPC. Therefore, the court considered that in exercise of its powers under Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC, it is empowered to grant leave to an election Petitioner to file a replication.However, such leave is not to be granted mechanically. The Court also opined that  before granting leave the averments made in the plaint/election petition, the written statement and The replication must in considered thereof, Further the court observed that, In the instant case, the material facts alleged in the Election petition, inter alia, were that while filing nomination Papers the returned candidate had failed to disclose:

 (a) details Of some of his bank accounts

 (b)Ownership of a motor vehicle, which stood registered in his Name;

(c) details of his spouse’s profession or occupation;

 (d)The investment made by him on the land, by way of development, construction etc.; and

 (e) the details of his Liability owed to the Bank

Therefore the court further observed, the statement, that the Bank account did not belong to the returned candidate, his Spouse, or dependents, and that the account was for Social/charitable use wherein the returned candidate had Associated in a fiduciary capacity of a coordinator/facilitator. Further,the court observed that  to substantiate the said plea, the details of the 56 Affected poor families were given. the court also observed that the motor vehicle of which disclosure Was not made by the returned candidate had been gifted to one Person in the year 2012, therefore there was no concealment In respect of that vehicle. The court also observed  statement of the returned candidate to that since value of immovable property Was disclosed, there was no separate disclosure as regards the Amount spent in the construction of residential house standing Thereupon. Thus, there was no concealment.

Further the court considered that In the application seeking leave to file replication, the election petitioner stated that the returned candidate had, stated new facts of which a reply was required, therefore leave to file a replication was  granted. On considering all the facts and circumstances the registration of the vehicle in the name of the Returned candidate was reiterated, and the claim that the Vehicle was gifted in the year 2012 was denied. it was stated that whether the disclosure already made in Respect of profession or occupation of spouse was proper or Not, is for the Court to decide. Similarly, in paragraph 26 it was Stated that the returned candidate was obliged to disclose the Amount invested in the construction of residential house. Hence ,The court made it clear from above that the non-disclosure of bank Accounts, alleged in the election petition, was sought to be Explained by the returned candidate in his written statement. The replication only sought to meet that explanation. Similarly, The reply in the written statement in respect of other material Facts pleaded in the election petition was sought to be dealt With, by way of explanation, in the replication. The replication Does not seek to incorporate any new material facts or a new Cause of action to question the election. It only seeks to explain The averments made in the written statement. Thus, the court opined that, leave to file replication was justified and well within the Discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court.therefore, the court on not finding any merit in this appeal Dismissed off the same.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

judgement reviewed by SOWMYA.R

Click here to view judgement

 

0

Bombay High Court rules in police recruitment advertisement: Dismissal of multiple applications by numerous candidates for judicial review

CASE TITLE: Ashok Mallinath Halsangi. V. The State of Maharashtra and ors

CASE NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 7650 OF 2023

ORDER ON:03-05-2024

QUORUM: J. JITENDRA JAIN, And J. A. S. CHANDURKAR,

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The writ petition in question, along with other writ petitions raising the common issue for consideration of this court, and being disposed of by a common judgment has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17th March 2023 of the Full Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai.

The factual matrix that led to the present petition is that On 30th November 2019, the Respondent-State issued an advertisement for the recruitment of three posts out of which one being, District Police Constable Driver, therefore, as a result of the said advertisement around 1,17,000 applications were received for the post of Police Constable Drivers. Out of which , it was noticed that around 2897 candidates have filled in more than one application for the said post. The Respondent-State disqualified/terminated these candidates on the ground that the advertisement specifically provided that one candidate cannot make more than one application for the same post in various districts. These 2897 candidates made multiple applications for the said one post in different districts with different mobile numbers, email ids, and in some of cases different Aadhaar card numbers. Some of the candidates did not even furnish their aadhaar card numbers. Some of these candidates also made minor changes to the spelling of their parent’s name etc. in different applications. When the Matter came before the tribunal, the Full Bench on a reading of clause 11.10 of the advertisement, concluded that these candidates were rightly disqualified. Therefore on this backdrop, the present petition is filed .

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Article 226 of the Indian constitution: power of High Courts to issue certain writs

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

The counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners contend that the Full Bench of the Tribunal has not considered clause 11.17 of the advertisement which provides that if two email ids are furnished then the one which is registered first will be considered for all the purposes of the recruitment process and the other email ids will be ignored to contend that more than one application is permissible. The counsel further submitted that clause 11.10 does not prohibit a candidate from applying for the same post in different districts since the recruitment being each district. The counsel further submits that on a harmonious reading of clause 11.10 read with 11.17, the restriction is that a candidate for the same district cannot apply for the same post more than once. The counsel, therefore, submitted that since they have applied for the said post by making more than one application for different districts, hence, Respondent State is not justified in disqualifying/terminating them.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent State and other successful candidates contended that by the modus operandi adopted by the Petitioners, they have violated the condition specified in clause 11.10 by making multiple applications for the same post in different districts. The counsel further, submitted that clauses 11.10 and 11.17 operate in different fields and the same cannot be construed harmoniously, but are to be construed independently. The counsel further submitted that the post for which the advertisement has been issued is for the candidates who will regulate the law and order of the State and if a candidate has violated clause 11.10 by making multiple applications, such candidates have committed fraud and are not fit for being considered for the post. Therefore submitted that from the conduct and acts of the Petitioners, it is very clear that they have intentionally made more than one application by giving different mobile numbers, email ids, etc. The Respondents, therefore, supported the order of the Tribunal and prayed for the dismissal of the present petition.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court on hearing both sides, analysed the clauses of the advertisement dated 30th November 2019 and opined that in the light of clause 11.10 of the advertisement, the candidate cannot make more than one application for the same post in more than one police unit, there is not only an express prohibition for making more than one application for the same post in the same unit but also there is a prohibition for making an application for the same post in more than one unit. Therefore, even on a pure and plain reading of clause 11.10, the submission made by the Petitioners is to be rejected.the court opined that there is no ambiguity of clause 11.10 and, therefore, this Court in the garb of judicial review cannot sit in the chair of appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. This Court cannot adopt an interpretative rewriting of clause 11.10 of the advertisement, the court also opined that the harmonious construction of the two clauses i.e, 11.10 and 11.17  is to an extent that a candidate cannot be permitted to make more than one application for the same post qua each district. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners on this count is also required to be rejected.

The court observed that in Clause 14.4- no fault can be found in the Tribunal’s order and the acts of the Respondent-State in disqualifying the Petitioners from the selection process or from termination of employment.The court opined that out of 1,17,000 candidates who applied for the post only 2897 candidates were found to have adopted the course of making multiple applications. Thereforefore the remaining candidates correctly made one application for one post on a proper understanding of clause 11.10. If the Petitioners’ contention on a reading of clause 11.10 is to be accepted then we fail to understand why miniscule percentage of the candidates understood so and why almost majority candidates understood the clause correctly.therefore the court opined that the submission of the Petitioners would amount to giving premium to such conduct and punishing the prudent candidates which course of action cannot be approved by this Court, irrespective of the post for which the vacancy has been advertised and although more so in the present case where vacancy is in the Police Force.Given the above, analysis and concerning, Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balram Bahira & Ors the court does not find any fault in the action of the Respondent-State and the order of the Tribunal confirming the same. Therefore the court dismissed the writ petition. Therefore given the disposal of the Writ Petitions, the Interim Application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 19. The operation of the present judgment is stayed for a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

judgement reviewed by: Sowmya.R

Click here to view judgement

1 2 3 7