Navrattan Singh Chauhan and Ors. Vs. Mandi Director U.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: SLP (Civil) Appeal No. 147-151 of 1987.
(From the judgment and order dated 18.8.86 of the High Court of Allahabad in CWP No. 470/85)
(From the judgment and order dated 18.8.86 of the High Court of Allahabad in CWP No. 470/85)
Petitioner: Navrattan Singh Chauhan and Ors.
Respondent: Mandi Director U.P. & Ors.
Apeal: SLP (Civil) Appeal No. 147-151 of 1987.
(From the judgment and order dated 18.8.86 of the High Court of Allahabad in CWP No. 470/85)
(From the judgment and order dated 18.8.86 of the High Court of Allahabad in CWP No. 470/85)
Judges: A.P. SEN & V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 01, 1987
Appearances:
Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, Sr. Advocate & Mr. C.P. Pandey, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.N. Kacker, Sr. Advocate & Mrs. S. Dikshit, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
U.P. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE (CENTRALISED) SERVICE REGULATIONS, 1984 :
Regulation 9 – Power of Committee appointed under Reg. 9 – Committee can delegate the function of selection of candidates to a member – High Court was wrong in interferring with the selection of candidates.
Regulation 9 – Power of Committee appointed under Reg. 9 – Committee can delegate the function of selection of candidates to a member – High Court was wrong in interferring with the selection of candidates.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. As the respondent U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadhan Mandi Parishad has complied with the direction of the High Court for reconsideration of the cases of the petitioners before the High Court for absorption to the posts of Mandi Secretaries in the Centralised Services as provided by Regulation 19 of the U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Centralised) Service Regulations 1984, the questions raised in these petitions no longer survive. That apart, even on merits, we cannot share the view expressed by the High Court that the Committee appointed under Regulation 9 of the Service Regulations had no power to delegate the function of selection of candidates to a Member. Indeed, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition much less interferred with the selection of candidates. Be that as it may, the direction of the High Court having been complied with, the questions raised are now purely academic. The Committee will now pronounce the list of the selected candidates made pursuant to the direction of the High Court within ten days from today. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the selection, they are at liberty to resort to such remedy as they may have under the law.
2. Special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly.
1. As the respondent U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadhan Mandi Parishad has complied with the direction of the High Court for reconsideration of the cases of the petitioners before the High Court for absorption to the posts of Mandi Secretaries in the Centralised Services as provided by Regulation 19 of the U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Centralised) Service Regulations 1984, the questions raised in these petitions no longer survive. That apart, even on merits, we cannot share the view expressed by the High Court that the Committee appointed under Regulation 9 of the Service Regulations had no power to delegate the function of selection of candidates to a Member. Indeed, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition much less interferred with the selection of candidates. Be that as it may, the direction of the High Court having been complied with, the questions raised are now purely academic. The Committee will now pronounce the list of the selected candidates made pursuant to the direction of the High Court within ten days from today. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the selection, they are at liberty to resort to such remedy as they may have under the law.
2. Special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly.
