State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma and Ors.

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. I> 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 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; (l') he the competent authurity for approving the hudget of the ( :ommittecs; and (d) he rcsponsihk for the preparation of the annual budget of the Board." Rule of the Service Rules which is relevant is r..:prn­ duccd hereunder: -- ~ I 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." Section 20 of the Act read w·ith Rule 6 of the General Rules gives 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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, 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. 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:- "OFFICE ORDER Sh. Ram Niwas, XEN. from PWD(B&R) is hereby posted as XEN, in HSAM Board in Panchkula as 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. 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 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. E Sharma was given the current duty charge of the post of Executive 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. 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 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.