Delhi High Court
Shri V.S. Krishnan vs Union Of India And Anr. on 6 May, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.9096/2014
% 6th May, 2015
SHRI V.S. KRISHNAN ....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,
Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner who was contractually employed by the respondent no.2/
Society of Integrated Coastal Management (SICOM) as Procurement Officer
seeks the relief of quashing of the order of the respondent no.2 dated
21.11.2014 terminating the employment of the petitioner. Respondent no.2 is
Society of Integrated Coastal Management (SICOM) and is engaged in the
work of integrated coastal management. Petitioner was appointed by the
respondent no.2 as a Procurement Officer vide respondent no.2's letter dated
26.8.2010. Clause 3(h) of this appointment letter reads as under:-
W.P.(C) No.9096/2014 Page 1 of 6
"3(h) Procurement Officer appointment is subject to co-termination
with the SICOM for Administrative decisions of the Governing
Council of SICOM."
2. I may for the sake of giving clarity note that between the
expression SICOM and Administrative in this clause the expression should be
"or" and not "for" as is typed by the petitioner and even if "for" has been
typed wrongly by the respondent no.2 itself in the original letter dated
26.8.2010 obviously it is a typing mistake because appointment of the
petitioner as per this clause was either on termination of the SICOM project or
for administrative reasons given by the governing council of SICOM.
3. As per the respondent no.2, employment of the petitioner was
terminated because there was no need of the post of a Procurement Officer
and procurement was now on abolition of the post directed to be done by a
procurement committee and these details are given in preliminary submission
2 of the counter affidavit of the respondent no.2 and which reads as under:-
"2. In place of the Procurement Officer Society of Integrated
Coastal Management has but in place the following mechanism which
are more transparent and effective:-
(i) Finance Sub-Committee of GC of SICOM-for major
procurement issues/matters
(ii) Three member Committee to examine and make
recommendations to National Project Director relating to procurement
matters of SICOM, consisting of an official from IFD, MoEF&CC, an
W.P.(C) No.9096/2014 Page 2 of 6
Officer from Survey of India and Procurement Specialist, NMCG,
Ministry of Water Resources.
(iii) Accounts Officer, Society of Integrated Coastal Management
(iv) Procurement and Financial Management Consultants."
4. Respondent no.2 has therefore abolished the post of Procurement
Officer and as per para 3.1 of the preliminary submissions of the counter
affidavit necessary approval has also been taken from the World Bank vide e-
mail dated 13.3.2015 annexed as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit.
5. Before I turn to the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, it
requires to be noted that an employer has always a right to abolish the post. In
fact, even the Central Government has a right to abolish the post and thereby
terminate the employment of its employee and this is so held by the Supreme
Court in the judgment in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs.
Navneet Verma (2008) 2 SCC 65. The relevant para of this judgment which
summarizes the ratio of this case is para 17 and which reads as under:-
"17. We summarize the power of Government in abolishing a post
and role of the court for interference:
a) the power to create or abolish a post rests with the Government;
b) whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon
the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity;
c) creation and abolition of posts is a matter of government policy
and every sovereign government has this power in the interest and
necessity of internal administration;
W.P.(C) No.9096/2014 Page 3 of 6
d) creation, continuance and abolition of posts are all decided by the
Government in the interest of administration and general public;
e) the court would be the least competent in the face of scanty
material to decide whether the Government acted honestly in
creating a post or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from
mala fide, legal or factual;
f) as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith in
the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted.
With the above principles, let us consider whether the abolition of
the posts of Accounts Executives are justified and consequential
order of termination terminating the respondent-herein from the said
post is sustainable."
6. A reading of the para 17 of the judgment in the case of Navneet
Verma (supra) shows that the government has the absolute privilege to create
or abolish the post and decide as per the exigency of the situation with respect
to non-continuation of a post. Courts cannot step in for substituting its
decision with that of the competent authority for abolishing the post provided
the government is found to have acted bonafidely and honestly. Therefore, the
only aspect to be considered is whether the respondent no.2 has acted
bonafidely in the facts of the present case in abolishing the post resulting in
termination of services of the petitioner.
7. In my opinion the aspect with respect to bonafides of the
respondent no.2 in abolishing the post cannot be questioned because the
project in question is financed by the World Bank and even as per the
W.P.(C) No.9096/2014 Page 4 of 6
petitioner permission was required to be taken of the World Bank for
abolishing the post, and this permission has been obtained by the respondent
no.2 and which has been filed as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit as
stated above. Once the relevant officer of the World Bank has examined the
matter and has given no objection for abolishing of the post of the
Procurement Officer and substitution of the job of the Procurement Officer by
a committee, then, merely because petitioner alleges malafide and corruption
which he says he pointed out including action of appointing contractor on
single window basis will not and cannot mean that with respect to the
allegations and such materials relied upon by the petitioner, it can be held by
the Court that respondent no.2 was not acting fairly. As already stated above,
once the World Bank has given its no objection for abolishing of the post,
bonafides of the respondent no.2 cannot be questioned. It is also to be noted
that as per the respondent no.2 since limited finances are available with it
there was no need of a specialized Procurement Officer and incurring
expenditure with respect thereto once the aspect of said procurement can
always be looked into by existing employees/officers of the respondent no.2.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition
and the petitioner cannot be granted the relief of cancellation of termination of
his employment which was done by the respondent no.2 vide its letter dated
W.P.(C) No.9096/2014 Page 5 of 6
21.11.2014 because the respondent no. 2 had bonafidely abolished the post of
Procurement Officer.
9. Dismissed. No costs.
MAY 06, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
