Manisha Verma and ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and anr.

Manisha Verma and ors. vs State of Uttarakhand and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Uttaranchal Decided Jan 15, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/902453

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/902453
Court: Uttaranchal High Court
Judge: V.K. Bist, J.
Decided On: Jan 15, 2010
Subject: Civil;Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MINING Direction to State Government to consider all applications afresh in light of interpretation of Section 11 of the Act and Rules 35, 59 and 60 of MC Rules Main issue : Whether the State Government's recommendation dated 06.12.2004 and the proceedings of the Chief Minister are contrary to the provisions of...

Key legal issue: Civil;Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manisha Verma and ors.

Respondent

State of Uttarakhand and anr.

Excerpt

.....dated 15.03.2003.[para 42] d) whether rule 35 of the mc rules justify the recommendation of the state government in favour of the respondents-jindal and kalyani -- as discussed above, rule 35 only permits the state government to take additional factor of the "end use" of the minerals and not the existing investments made by the applicants. moreover, relying on the existing investments made, the respondents also does not satisfy the requirements under section 11(3)(d) which talks solely about proposed investments to be made and not the existing ones.[para 44] e) whether the criterion of "captive consumption" referred to in tata iron and steel co. ltd. vs. union of india, (1996) 9 scc 709, have any application in this case despite not being one of the factors referred to in section 11 (3) of the mmdr act or rule 35 of the mc rules -- we have already held that section 11(3) specifies the matter relevant for purposes of second proviso to section 11(2). we also referred to the committee's report. in accordance with the recommendation in the said report, section 11(3)(d) was added as part of the substitution of section 11 in the year 1999. sub-section (d) provides that "the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on minerals" and it speaks about investment proposed to be made and not past investments. thus it confines the concept of "captive consumption of minerals to proposed investment and not past investments". even the residuary clauses in section 11(3)(e) are limited to "matters as may be prescribed", which would necessarily mean matters prescribed by rules. this is fortified by decision of this court in bsnl ltd. & anr. vs. bpl mobile cellular ltd. & ors., (2008) 13 scc 597, para 45.[para 35] f) whether factors such as the past commitments by the state government to applicants who have already set up steel plants, matter for consideration for grant of lease despite the mmdr act and the mc rules constituting a..........no. 1 out of select list after a period of about more than five years. it is vehemently argued that as per their own criteria of selection when the petitioners were selected against the o.b.c. category, now it is not open for respondent no. 2 to review its own recommendation under the doctrine of approbation and reprobation as under the doctrine of approbation and reprobation, the authority is stopped from taking any such action against the interest of bonafide selected employees.8. the public service commission is known for its fairness, therefore, in case the commission is permitted to change the selection after a considerable period of more than five years, as has been done in the case in hand, it will adversely effect the whole process occupied in selection of the employees selected in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. even otherwise, the public services commission cannot cancel unilaterally the appointment of any person who has been selected six years back, joined the services and promoted to the higher post. this court is convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the commission is allowed to alter the selection it will put negative impact on the mind of people regarding functioning of the commission, further the commission cannot cancel appointment of an employee unilaterally after sending recommendation to the employer that too after a considerable period of more than five years.9. having heard learned counsel for the parties and after careful examination of the papers annexed with the record it is directed that till next date of listing, the reviewed recommendation dated 24.12.2009, issued by the public service commission, uttarakhand, reviewing its own earlier recommendation dated 19.04.2004, shall remain stayed.

Full Judgment

V.K. Bist, J.

I.A. No. 182 of 2010 (Urgency Application)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the urgency application and perused the record.

2. Urgency application is allowed.

WPSB No. 9 of 2010:

3. Heard.

4. Admit the petition.

5. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State accepts notices on behalf of the State/respondent No. 1 and Sri B.D. Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents pray for and are allowed four weeks time to file counter affidavit. List this petition on 22nd February, 2010 in the supplementary cause list.

CLMA No. 115/2010 (Interim Relief Application)

6. Also heard on the stay application.

7. From perusal of the record it reveals that in the month of February, 2003 Uttarakhand Public Services Commission issued an advertisement for filling up 94 vacancies of Upper Division Assistants for the Secretariat, 10 vacancies of Upper Division Assistants and 10 vacancies of Lower Division Assistants for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Pursuant to this advertisement, the petitioners applied for and appeared in the main examination in which they were declared successful. The petitioners were considered against the O.B.C. category and were selected against the O.B.C. category seats for the post of Upper Division Assistants in the Uttarakhand Secretariat. Thereafter, the petitioners joined their training and after completion of training they were posted in various departments under Uttarakhand Secretariat. The record further reveals that the services of the petitioners were confirmed w.e.f 28.10.2005/09.08.2005. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.08.2009/30.09.2008 the petitioners were given promotion on the post of Section Officer. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner all of a sudden vide letter dated 24.12.2009, the Uttarakhand Public Services Commission/respondent No. 2 purported to have reviewed its earlier recommendation dated 19.04.2004 and has sent a fresh recommendation to the State Government, resulting into down grading the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and throwing the petitioner No. 1 out of select list after a period of about more than five years. It is vehemently argued that as per their own criteria of selection when the petitioners were selected against the O.B.C. category, now it is not open for respondent No. 2 to review its own recommendation under the doctrine of approbation and reprobation as under the doctrine of approbation and reprobation, the authority is stopped from taking any such action against the interest of bonafide selected employees.

8. The Public Service Commission is known for its fairness, therefore, in case the Commission is permitted to change the selection after a considerable period of more than five years, as has been done in the case in hand, it will adversely effect the whole process occupied in selection of the employees selected in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. Even otherwise, the Public Services Commission cannot cancel unilaterally the appointment of any person who has been selected six years back, joined the services and promoted to the higher post. This Court is convinced with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in case the Commission is allowed to alter the selection it will put negative impact on the mind of people regarding functioning of the Commission, further the Commission cannot cancel appointment of an employee unilaterally after sending recommendation to the employer that too after a considerable period of more than five years.

9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after careful examination of the papers annexed with the record it is directed that till next date of listing, the reviewed recommendation dated 24.12.2009, issued by the Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, reviewing its own earlier recommendation dated 19.04.2004, shall remain stayed.

Same Court & Year Uttaranchal · 2010 Same Parties Manisha Verma and ors. vs State of Uttarakhand and anr. Same Subject Civil;Service Same Judge V.K. Bist, J.

Civil;Service