Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HARYANAversusS.M. SHARMA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1993 INSC 157
- Decided
- 20 April 1993
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- KULDIP SINGH
Holding
The order withdrawing the current duty charge was within the Chief Administrator's authority and not illegal; the High Court erred in quashing it.
Summary
S.M. Sharma, a Sub‑Divisional Officer of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, was entrusted with the current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer on 13 June 1991. On 6 January 1992 the Chief Administrator withdrew this charge and transferred Sharma, who then filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order. The High Court allowed the petition, holding the order illegal. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the order was merely a posting, not a promotion, and that Sharma never actually held the post of Executive Engineer; therefore no right to claim reversion existed. The Court held that the Chief Administrator acted within his powers under the relevant rules, and that the High Court had misused its extraordinary jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed with costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the withdrawal of a current duty charge constitutes a removal from the post of Executive Engineer for purposes of judicial review.
- Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging a posting order under Article 226.
- Whether the Chief Administrator was empowered to issue the orders under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act and the Board's service rules.
Legislation cited
Subjects
current duty chargepostingpromotionwrit jurisdictionArticle 226administrative lawHaryana State Agricultural Marketing BoardPunjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act
Judgment
-
A STATE OF HARY ANA
v.
S.l\1. SHARl\IA AND ORS.
APRIL 20, 1993
n
(KULDIPSINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL • .J~.J.l
Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act. / 9(} I: Sectimz 3(17) (ii)
read 11·it/J Rule 4(2) oftl1e Punjah Agricullllral Produce Market fGen-
eral) Rules. 1961 a11d Rule 13 of t/Je Harya11a State Agricultural
C Marketing Board Se1i·ice Uules. 1974-Cl1ief Ad111i11istrator's Order
dated 6. J. / 992 \1'it/Jdrawi11g t/Je current duty c/Jarge of the E.recwi,·e
• E11gineer-Legalitv of
Co11stitutio11 cf India. 1950: Article 226-Writ hy w1 employee.
-
entrusted t/Je current duty c/Jarge oft/Je Executi1·e Engineer. cha/Ieng-
() i11g order \1'it/Jdra'vring sucfl cfwrge under N.ule 4(2) t~( the Punjab
Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules. 1961 and Rule 13 <ft/Je
Harnma State Agricultural Marketing Board Serl'ice Rules. 1974-
.fustij'icatio11 of
E The respondent No. I was Sub- Divisional Officer in the service
of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board. He was en-
trusted with the current duty chargeof'the post ofl~xecuti\'e Engineer
h~· the order dated .lune I3, 1991 of the Chief Administrator and later
1m hy 1trder dated Januar~· 6, 1992 withdrawing the current dut~·
F charge from the respondent No. I, he was transforred.
The respondent No. I challenged the order before the High Court
in a writ petition. The High Court quashing the Hoard 'sorcier allowed
·the writ petition, against which the Board filed the present appeal by
special lean~.
G
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1.1 The order dated January 6, I992 is onl~· a posting
-
order in respect of two officers. \\I ith the posting of one Ram Ni was
H as Executive Engineer, the respondent No.1 was automatically re-
280
I
STATE OF HARY ANA 1·. S.\1. SHAR\1A [Kl.'LDIP SIN<"iH. J.] 2Rl
lie\·ed of the current dut~· charge of the post of Executh·e Engineer. A
The respondent No. I was neither appointed/promoted/posted as
Executh·e Engineer nor was he ever re\'erted from the said p<lst. He
was onl~· holding current duty charge of the post of Executh·e
Engineer. and as such the questi<1n of his ren~rsion from the said post
did not arise. (285-C-D)
B
1.02 The High Court fell into patent error in reading the order
dated .I une 13, I 991 as the order promoting the respondent No. I to the
post of Executh·e Engineer. (284-(;)
~ 2. The High Court extended its extra-ordinar~· jurisdiction C
under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia to a frin11it~·· No one has
a right to ask for or stick to a current dut~· charge. The impugned
order did not cause any financial loss or prejudice of ~my kind to
respondent No. I. He had no cause of action what-.oe\·er to inn1ke the
writ jurisdiction ,of the High Court. It was a patent misuse of the
D
process of the Co~1rt. (2X5-G)
CIVIL Al'PEILATE .ll fRISDICTlON : Civil App.:al No. I 952
of I 993.
From the Judgment and order dated 20.8.1992 of the Punjah and E
llaryana lligh Court in C.W.P. No. ~82 of 11>'>2.
(i.L.Sanghi, M.R. Sharma. K.H. RPhatagi. Ms. Aparna Rohatagi
antJ M.K. Puri fpr the Appdlant.
V.C. Mahajan. Y.K. Shanna antJ P.N. Puri for the Respondents.
The .Judgment of the ( 'ourt was ddiwred hy: ,
KULl>IP SINGH.• .J Special leave granted. G
S. M. Sharma is empluyed as Suh Divisional Officer in the
Service uf the l laryana State Agricultural ~farketing Board (the
B11ard). The Chief Administrator of thL· Hoard hy tht: order dated June
13. I <>'JI entrusted Sharma with the current duty chari;c uf the post of
H
2X2 SI 1PRD1E Cot "RT REPORTS (1<)9~( l S.C'.R.
A Executive Enginea. Later on by the order dated January 6, 11>92 the
Chief Administrator withdraw the said current duty charge from
Sharma and transferred him to Bhiwani. Sharma challenged the order
before the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The I ligh Court by its judgment dated August
20. I 1><J2 al11 iwed the writ petition and 4uashed the order dated fanuary
B o. l 'J'J2. This appeal by the State of I laryana is against the judg1m.:nt
of the I ligh Court.
The Constitution and the functioning of the Board is governed hy
the Punjah Agricultural Produce l\farkets Act. 1961C the Act) as
C applicahle to the State of Haryana and hy the Rules framed thereunder.
Section~( 17 )(ii) of the Act cmpllwers the Board 1<1 dekgate any of its
pPwers to its Chairman. Chief Administrator. Secretarry nr any of its
offic.:rs. The Punjab Agricultural Produce Market ( ( ienaal) Rules.
I '>fd <the General Rules) and the I laryana State Agricultural Market-
ing Board Ser\'ices Rules. 1974 (the Service Kuks) have hcen framed
--
I>
under the Act. Rule 4(2) of the Clcncral Rules \yhil.:h lays down the
functions and pllwcrs nf thc Chief Administrator is as under:
"4(2) The Chief Administrator shall. -
(a) be responsible for the administration of the Act
and shall suhject to any. other provision contained in
lhesc ruks. exen:ise general conlml over 1hc employ-
ees of lhc Board and thosl.'. of Committees;
(hl enjoy the powas of the I kad of thl.'. Department
as arc hcing enjoyed by th..: Director of Agricultur..:
I >cpartmcnt;
he the competent authurity for approving the
(l')
hudget of the ( :ommittecs; and
G
(d) he rcsponsihk for the preparation of the annual
budget of the Board."
Rule of the Service Rules which is relevant is r..:prn-
H duccd hereunder:
STAIB OF HARY ANA,.. S.M. SHARMA .[KULDlP SINGH, J.] 283
"13. A member of the Service shall be liable to serve A
iri any place, whether within or without the state of
Haryana, on bei~g ordered so to .do by the Chief
Administrator."
~
I
Section 20 of the Act read w·ith Rule 6 of the General Rules gives
B
the power of appointment to the post of Executive Engineer to the
Roard. It is not disputed that the board by its resolution dated
Novemher 18, 1986 delegated its powers. to appoint Class A Officers,
including the Executive Engineers, and to inflict major punishment in
respect of such officers, lo the Chief Administrator of the Board..
Thereafter the Board by its resolution dated December 26, 1991 C
superseded the earlier resolution dated November 18. 1986 and
further r.esolved to delegate the said powers to its Chairman. The
appellant, State Government. claims that the resolution dated Decem-
her 26, 1991. having.been passed in the absence of the Chief Admin-
istrator. was not valid. We do not wish to go into the question of the
D
validity of the said resolution. The High Court procl!eded on the
assumption that the resolution dated December 26, 1991 was valid and
as such the Chief Administrator was left with no power to appoint a
pt:rson to the post of Executive. Engineer and to remove him there-
from.
E
On the above facts the High Court reached the following find-
ings:
i.) Under the Act and the Service Rules it is the Board which is
competent to make an appointment to the post of Executive Engineer. F
ii.) The delegation of powers in favourofthe Chief Administrator
was withdrawn by the Board b'y its resolution dated December 26,
199 l and instead the said powers were delegated to the Chairman. It
was. thus, only the Chairman who could appoint a person to the post
G
of Executive Engineer and also to remove him therefrom.
iii) After the above said resolution dated December 26, 1991 the
Chief Administrator was no longer competent to exercise the powers
with regard to appointment. removal etc. in respect of the post of
Executive Engineer. H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 3 $.C.R.
A On the a~\)ve quoted f!ndings the High Court concluded that the
order of the Chief Administrator dated January 6. 1992 withdrawing
the current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer from Sharma
was illegal. 1:he High Court thus. allowed the writ petition and quashed
the said order.
Wedo not agree with the High Court. Even if the findings reached
by the High Court are taken to he correct, there is no justification to
quash the order of the Chief Administrator pated January 6, 1992.
Sharma was given the current duty charge hy the order daied June
C 13. 199 I which is reproduced hereunder:
"OFFICE ODER
Sh. Surindcr Mohan Sharma. SDO. HSAM. Roard,
D Naraingarh is entrusted current duties charge of the
post of Executive Engineer, Kaithal in his own pay
scale till further order.
These order shall take immediate effect.
E Sd/-
Raj Kumar
Chief Administrator"
Shanna was not promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, he
F was only entrusted with the current duty charge of the said post in his
own pay scale till further orders. There is no order promoting Sharma
to the post of Executive Engineer. The High Court fell into patent error
in reading the order dated June 13. 1991 as the order promoting Sharn~a
to the post of Executive Engineer. We may also notice the in1pugned
order dated January 6, 1992 which is as.undt:r:-
G
"OFFICE ORDER
Sh. Ram Niwas, XEN. from PWD(B&R) is hereby
posted as XEN, in HSAM Board in Panchkula as
H XEN, (Design).
STATE OF HARYA:"-iA "· S.M. SHARMA [KL:LDIP Sl:'\tiH. J.I 285
Sh. Surinder Mohan Sharma, SDO. who was holding
current duty cha.rge of the. post qf XEN in his own pay
scale is hereby transferred from Panchkula and posted
as SDO in Bhiwani.
,
These orders shall take immediate effect.
B
Manik Sonawane,
Chief Administrator."
It is only a posting orJcr in respect of two officers. With the!
posting of Ram Niwas as Exei.:utive Engineer Sharma was automati- c
cally relieved of the current duty charge of the post of Executive
Engineer. Sharma was neither appointed/promoted/posted as Execu-
tiw Engineer nor was he C\'Cr reverted from the said post. I-le was only
holding current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer. The
Chief AJministrator never promoted Sharma tn the post of Executive
Engineer and as such the 4uestion of his reversion from the said post D
did not arise. lJnJer the circumstances the controversy whether the
powers of the Board to appoint/promote a person to the post of an
Executive Engineer were delegated to the Chairman or to the Chief
Administrator, is wholly irrelevant.
Sharma was given the current duty charge of the post of Executive E
Engineer under the orders of the Chief Administrator and the said
charge was also withdrawn hy the same authority. We have already
reproduced above Ruk 4(2) of the General Rules and Ruk 13 of the
Service Rules. We arc of the view that the Chief Administrator, in the
facts and circumstances of this case. was within his powers to issue the F
two orders dated June ]}, 1991 and January 6, 1992.
We are constrained to say that the High Court extended its extra-
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
a frivolity. Noone has a right to ask for or stick to a current duty charge.
G
The impugned order did not cause any financial loss or prejudice of any
kind to Sharma. He had no cause of action whatsoever to invoke the
writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It was a patient misuse of the
process of the Court.
\:Ve. therefore. allow the appl.'al. set a"ick the impugncdjudgmcnt H
Sl'PREME COL"RT REl'ORTS (l'>'J3J :- S.C.R.
A of the High Coun dated August 20, 1992 and dismiss' the writ p.:tition
filed hy Shanna before the High Coun with costs. We quantify the
costs as Rs. IO.(XXl/-
V.l'.R. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "current duty charge"Sign in to search