Holding

The selection committee constituted under Rule 16 and the Single Judge’s order is valid, and it may interview candidates to assess merit.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by U.P. Jal Nigam challenging the contention of several applicants that the selection committee it constituted to interview candidates for recruitment under the Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1977 was not authorized. The applicants argued that Rule 16 of the Regulations and the order of the Single Judge did not permit calling candidates for interview. The Court held that both Rule 16 and option 4 of the Single Judge’s order expressly envisage the constitution of a committee, which may examine the candidates' records and conduct interviews to determine merit. It found no inconsistency between the Nigam’s actions and the judicial directions. Consequently, the selection committee’s procedure was upheld as valid and the applicants were directed to be considered fairly and objectively. The appeal was disposed of in favour of the Nigam.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 16 of the U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1977 authorises the calling of candidates for interview in a selection process.
Whether the direction of the Single Judge (option 4) is inconsistent with the constitution of a selection committee that conducts interviews.
Whether the actions of U.P. Jal Nigam in constituting the committee violate any statutory or judicial mandate.

Subjects

recruitmentselection committeeinterviewRule 16public service regulationsadministrative lawappointmentmerit

Judgment

U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ORS. A
,, v.
DURGA PRASAD SINGH AND ORS.

JANUARY 9, 1995

... [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.)
B

--,.
Service Liiw-{].P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health
Branch) Regulations, 1977-Recruitment by selection from amongst eligible
candidates on the basis of the record and interview-Constitution of Commit-
tee as per orders of High Court-Held, valitJ-Committee to consider the cases
c
according to Rules and Regulations-Directions issued.

Following the direction of the Single Judge dated January, 14, 1993,
the appellant constituted a Selection Committee and called the persons for

- ¥.'
interview for selection. The applicants contended that calling the persons
for interview was not warranted either by Rule 16 of U.P. Jal Nigam Service
D

of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1977 or the Order of the
Single Judge.

Disposing of the application, this Court E
HELD: 1. Rule 16 of the U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public
Health Branch) Regulations, 1977 and Option No.4 in the order of the
Single Judge as upheld by this Court contemplated constitution of a
~
Committee. Necessarily a Committee has to be constituted and the Com·
mittee as contemplated under Rule 16 has been chosen to be the forum to
F
consider the record of the eligible candidates besides being called for
interview to adjudge their merit. [120-G-H]

2. There is no inconsistency between the action taken by the Nigam
in implementing the order of this Court and the order of the Single Judge. G
.,,,.,. It is however made clear that any of the contentions raised by the respon-
dent/applicant seeking clarification of the order would not be an impedi·
ment for the Committee, while considering their cases for selection fairly
and objectively without any prejudice. The Committee will do well to
consider their cases according to Rules and Regulations. [121-A-B] H
119
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A No. 2of1995.
'.loc

In

Civil Appeal No. 9214 of 1994.

B From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.94 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. No. 72(SB) of 1994.
....
(
,,...
Rajiv Dhawan, Ms. Nalini Tripathi, J.M. Buddissi and R.B. Misra for
the Appellants.
c P.P. Rao and Pramod Swarup for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court wa~ delivered :

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order of the
D learned Single Judge dated January 14, 1993 made in Writ Petition No. ;... ....
8504 of 1987 with regard to the fourth option mentioned therein is clear
which we have already extracted while allowing the appeal at page 20 of
the paper' book. Sri. P.P. Rao, learp.ed Senior counsel appearing for the
applicant contends that while follwing the directions of the learned Single
Judge, the Jal Nigam had constituted a Selection Committee and called the
E persons for interview which is not warranted under the order. He. states
that Rule 16 of U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health
Branch) Regulations, 1977 provides that in the case of recruitment by
selection on the basis of intei;view alone, the candidates eligible for recruit-
ment under these regulations are to appear before the Selection Committee tr
F of the Nigam and on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection
Committee, the Nigam shall draw up a list of candidates selected in order
of merit. The respondents need only t~ look into the record and not the
basis of the interview. Rule 16 would not apply. The Nigam would, there-
fore, not be justify for making selection on the basis of interview. We, find
no force in this contention. In view of the fact that the selection is to be
G made in the light of option No, 4 which is now sought to be implemented
as per orders of the leatned Single Judge as upheld by this Court, neces- ......
sarily a ·committee has to be constituted and the Committee as con-
templated under Rule 16 has been chosen to be the forum to consider the
record of the eligible candidates besides being called for interview to
H adjudge their merit.
U.P. JAL NIGAM v. D.P. SINGH 121

Under these circumstances there is no inconsistency between the A
action taken by the Nigam in implementing the order of this Court and the
order of the learned Single Judge. It is, however, made clear that any of
I
the contentions raised by the respondent/applicant seeking clarification of
the order would not be an impediment for the Committee, while consider-
ing their cases for selection fairly and objectively without any prejudice.
We hope and trust that the Committee will do well to consider their cases
B
according to Rules & Regulations. I.A. is disposed of accordingly.

A.G . Petition disposed of.

.•