Shri S.D. Shukla vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 553 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. The Original Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is the petitioner herein. He is aggrieved by an order dated 30th June 1997 passed in RA 40/-96 in OA 71/94.

2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Inspecting Officer in the office of the respondent No. 1.

4. There were 18 posts of Senior Inspecting Officers and five posts of Dy. Director (Food and Vegetable Preservation) in the higher grade. Admittedly, according to the Recruitment Rules, the posts of Dy. Director were to be filled up 50% by way of promotion and 50% by way of direct recruitment. A Senior Inspecting Officer with five years' service was eligible for consideration for promotion.

5. One Shri B.S. Sood, Dy. Director went on deputation to Fruit Juice Bottling Plant. The said post was meant to be filled up by direct recruitment but for some reasons, the said post was filled by way of promotion. The petitioner was not promoted. He filed an Original Application before the Tribunal which was marked as OA 348/87. The cause of action for filing the said Original Application was that a post had illegally been filed up by way of direct recruitment although two posts immediately prior thereto had been consecutively filled up by promotion. The Tribunal held that the first seven vacancies which had arisen on various dates were filled up in terms of the rules. The Tribunal, however, despite finding merit in the contentions of the respondent to the effect that having regard to the Recruitment Rules, both the seventh and eight posts had been filled up by promotion, held that in terms of the Recruitment Rules, out of two vacant posts, one should be filled up by promotion. It was directed accordingly. To that effect, an order dated 28th May 1993 was passed which was as under:

"2. According to the judgment of the CAT in the aforesaid case, the Roster position of the Deputy Directors (F&VP) will be as under:-

Roster Point

Mode of recruitment

Name of the incumbents S/Sh.

9th

Direct recruit

A.K.

Paliwal

10th

Promotee

V.V.

Koteswara Rao

11th

Direct recruit

S.B.

Dongre"

6. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, was that ninth vacancy ought to have been earmarked for promotion.

7. Another Original Application was filed by one Shri N.D. Sharda where one Shri S.R. Dongre was the affected party but was not arrayed as a party respondent. The Tribunal, by reason of the impugned order, dismissed the application on the ground that the same was bared by constructive res judicata as also on the ground that the said Shri S.r. Dongre had not been imp leaded in this application.

8. Shri Shyam Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that having regard to the fact that a subsequent cause of action had arisen, the question of the applicability of the principles of constructive res judicata would not arise in the instant case. It was pointed out that an application for impleading the said Shri S.R. Dongre as a party in the said application was pending but although no order was passed thereupon, the impugned judgment had been passed overlooking the fact that in the connected application involving similar question, Shri S.R. Dongre was a party.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents Shri Sanjiv Sachdeva, on the other hand, would submit that the order of the learned Tribunal passed in Original Application has been complied with.

10. The following chart would show the factual position:

s.No.

What was proposed to be done  

What   was   done   in pursuance to orders of the   Tribunal   dated 30.1.1992

What is now beine sought     bv     the Petitioner  

1.

Prpmotee

Prpmotee

Prpmotee

2.

Direct Recruitment

Direct Recruitment

Direct Recruitment

3.

Prpmotee

Prpmotee

Prpmotee

4.

Direct Recruitment

Direct Recruitment

Direct Recruitment

5.

Promotee

Promotee

Promotee

6.

Direct Recruitment

Direct Recruitment

Direct Recruitment

7.

Promotee

Promotee

Promotee

8.

Promotee

Promotee

Promotee

9.

Direct Recruitment (proposed)  

Direct Recruitment (proposed)  

Promotee

10.

Direct Recruitment (proposed)

Promotee

Direct Recruitment (proposed)

11.

 

Direct Recruitment

Promotee

11. There is no factual dispute as regard the manner of filing up of the vacancy by the respondents up to Sl. No. 8.

12. The eighth vacancy cropped up as the incumbent of the post went of deputation. The respondents, for valid reasons, did not want to fill up the said post by direct recruitment having regard to the fact that the said incumbent had a lien there over. It is true that having regard to the action of the respondents to fill up both ninth and tenth posts by way of direct recruitment, it was directed by the Tribunal that one of them should be filled up by promotion. The Tribunal, however, did not direct nor in the facts and circumstances of this case, could do so that the ninth post should be filled up by promotion. If a decision therefore has been taken to fill up the ninth post by direct recruitment particularly having regard to the fact that both the seventh and eight post had been filled up by promotion, we see no error therein.

13. The judgment, as it is well known, is not to be read as a statute. The judgment must be read in its entirety and reasonably.

14. In Central Coalfields v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1993 (1) PLJR 617 a Division Bench of the Patna High Court noticed:

"15. It is also well known that judgment of a court is not to be read as a Statute.

In General Electric Co. v. Renusagar Power Co. , it was held:-

"As often enough pointed by us, words and expressions used in a judgment are not to be construed in the same manner as statutes or as word and expressions defined in statutes. We do not have any doubt that when the words, 'adjudication of the merits of the controversy in the suit' were used by this Court in State of U.P. v.

Janki Saran Kailash Chandra, the words were not used to take in every adjudication which brought to an end the proceeding before the court in whatever manner but were meant to cover only such adjudication as touched upon the real dispute between the parties which gave rise to the action.

Objections to adjudication of the disputes between the parties, on whatever ground, are in truth not aids to the progress of the suit but hurdles to such progress. Adjudication of such objections cannot be termed as adjudication of the merits of the controversy in the suit. As we said earlier, a broad view has to be taken of the principles involved and narrow and technical interpretation which tends to defeat the object of the legislation must be avoided."

15. There exists a presumption that the court directed the parties to act in terms of law. As noticed before, the recruitment rules postulate filling up of the posts of the Dy. Director by way of promotion/direct recruitment in alternative. As the eighth post was filled up by way of promotion, the respondents were not bound to fill up 9th post by way of direct recruitment. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed an error warranting judicial review. If the contention of the petitioner had been before the Tribunal in its earlier case that even the ninth post should have been filled up by way of promotion, a specific prayer to that effect ought to have been made. The petitioner therein prayed only for quashing of the recruitment notification wherein the learned Tribunal passed an order. Thus, even assuming that the decision of the learned Tribunal cannot be upheld for the reasons assigned by it, this court is inclined to uphold the said decision on the grounds stated hereinbefore.

16. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed accordingly without any orders as to costs.