Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Gurdeep Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- labour & services. appointment:: [tarun chatterjee & h.s. bedi,jj] tenure appointment curtailment of tenure absence of necessary safeguards like show-cause notice and justifiable reasons in impugned provision held, provision is invalid. -- extension of service: held, extension of service after retirement/superannuation is within the employers discretion and not an employees right. -- public employment: status and rights of employees held, the employee apart from being under duties and obligations laid down in relevant rules, also enjoys protection of constitutional guarantees conferred by fundamental rights and remedies available under articles 32 and 226. it is not enough that relevant law to be applied to an employee should be within legislative competence. it must conform to article 13(2) also. -- removal from service: probationer - habitual and repetitive unauthorised absence despite enquiries and punishments single judge upholding it division bench reversing it on the ground of principles of natural justice held, the jurisdiction of the high court in this regard is rather limited. its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known factors. it cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. the superior courts only in some cases may invoke doctrine of proportionality. if the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. the high court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a legal order. order of division bench was set aside. -- constitution of india. articles 14 & 16: validity as to legislation pertaining a single person absence of intelligible differentia vis--vis other similarly situated persons held, the legislation, created invidious discrimination and therefore invalid. it is an instance of over classification. it is unconstitutional. constitution of india -- article 245:[tarun chatterjee & h.s. bedi,jj] supersession of judicial verdict conflict between legislation and judicial order judicial orders already passed not specifically brought to the notice of legislature nor was there any non obstante clause in the impugned legislation annulling such judicial orders held, judicial order remained in force. legislation did not override the judicial orders. order1. leave granted.2. the respondent was a hawaldar - a general duty staff clerk - attached to the army. he was detailed for orientation course but that permission was subsequently withdrawn on the premise that he did not possess the requisite experience. order withdrawing him from the orientation course was passed in 1990. he challenged it in a writ petition, filed before the punjab and haryana high court in 1995. that writ petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and therefore, he subsequently filed a writ petition before the high court of delhi. a learned single judge of the high court of delhi allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants herein to admit him in the orientation course to be commenced in the nearest future 'as against 1989 quota'. that judgment of the learned single judge was challenged in lpa before a division bench. but learned judges of the division bench did not go into the matter and instantly dismissed the writ appeal stating 'we find no merit and dismissed'. hence, appellants have come up with this appeal by special leave.3. mr. k.n. rawal, learned additional solicitor general, contended that respondent had no right - legal or otherwise - to insist that he should be detailed for the orientation course. we wanted to know from the judgment, rendered by the learned single judge as to the discussion and finding regarding the said legal right, the enforcement for which the respondent could have approached the high court. we did not find any discussion of that sort in the said judgment. at least that point should have been specifically considered and a finding should have been arrived at by the division bench when the order of the single judge was challenged in the letters patent appeal. though both sides tried to argue their respective points of view to establish that there was a legal or that there was no such legal right, we deem it fit that the division bench of the high court should embark on that question and arrive at a finding.4. we, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the division bench and send the case back to the high court for disposal of the letters patent appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations. needless to say, that the high court will give a priority to the said lpa for hearing and disposal. learned additional solicitor general made a plea for keeping the order of the learned single judge in abeyance. liberty is given for moving the high court for obtaining any such order.5. appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent was a Hawaldar - a general duty staff clerk - attached to the Army. He was detailed for Orientation Course but that permission was subsequently withdrawn on the premise that he did not possess the requisite experience. Order withdrawing him from the Orientation Course was passed in 1990. He challenged it in a writ petition, filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1995. That writ petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and therefore, he subsequently filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants herein to admit him in the Orientation Course to be commenced in the nearest future 'as against 1989 quota'. That judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged in LPA before a Division Bench. But learned Judges of the Division Bench did not go into the matter and instantly dismissed the writ appeal stating 'we find no merit and dismissed'. Hence, appellants have come up with this appeal by special leave.

3. Mr. K.N. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General, contended that respondent had no right - legal or otherwise - to insist that he should be detailed for the Orientation Course. We wanted to know from the judgment, rendered by the learned Single Judge as to the discussion and finding regarding the said legal right, the enforcement for which the respondent could have approached the High Court. We did not find any discussion of that sort in the said judgment. At least that point should have been specifically considered and a finding should have been arrived at by the Division Bench when the order of the Single Judge was challenged in the Letters Patent Appeal. Though both sides tried to argue their respective points of view to establish that there was a legal or that there was no such legal right, we deem it fit that the Division Bench of the High Court should embark on that question and arrive at a finding.

4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and send the case back to the High Court for disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations. Needless to say, that the High Court will give a priority to the said LPA for hearing and disposal. Learned Additional Solicitor General made a plea for keeping the order of the learned Single Judge in abeyance. Liberty is given for moving the High Court for obtaining any such order.

5. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.