Case: SHRIPAL BHATI  Vs. STATE OF UP

of its functions by the [Authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman) under this Act any dispute arises between the authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman) and the State Government the decision of the State Government on such dispute shall be final. (3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the [Authority or the Chairman) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit: Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Every order of the State Government made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1976 is applicable to Act of 1976 by virtue of Section 12 of the said Act. 1987 Regulations having been framed under the provisions of Section 79(c) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948, a parliamentary enactment authorizing absorption of employees of erstwhile U.P. Power Corporation in Government undertakings or other Statutory Corporations, in view of provisions of Section 80 of 1981 Regulations read with Section 41 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1976, not only respondent no. 2 is bound by every direction issued by the State Government from time to time, the appointment of respondent no. 4 in NOIDA on deputation and his subsequent absorption under the orders of the State Government cannot be faulted with or can be held to be in violation of 1981 Regulations. The first issue stands answered accordingly. 23. Question of maintainability of challenge to appointment and subsequent absorption at the behest of appellants has also been raised by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3. It is vehemently contended that appellant lacks requisite necessary qualifications for being considered for promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) and being ineligible for promotion any challenge to appointment on the said post at their behest is not maintainable. It is pointed out that eligibility for promotion to the post of Project Engineer is Degree in Engineering with minimum 8 years of experience as Assistant Project Engineer. 24. Specific case set up by NOIDA in its counter affidavit is that appellant no. 1 was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1987 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Project Engineer on 27.08.2013. Thus he lacks necessary qualification of 8 years experience and shall be eligible for being considered for promotion in 2021. Insofar as appellant no. 2 is concerned, he was appointed on the post of Assistant Project Engineer in February, 2009. As prescribed by Service Regulations, he became eligible for being considered for promotion on completing 8 years of service in February, 2017. Thus, at the time of appointment of respondent no. 4 in 2014, and his subsequent absorption in 2015, both the appellants were not eligible for promotion to the post of Project Engineer for want of requisite 8 years experience as Assistant Project Engineer. 25. For the aforesaid facts and reasons the challenge made by the appellants to the appointment and absorption of respondent no. 4 is not tenable and they have no locus standi in the matter. It may be relevant to refer to the observations made by this Court in the case Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. AIR 1976 SC 578 , relied upon by the High Court, holding that unless injury is suffered personally a person can not be said to be aggrieved and has no locus standi. In the light of above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore, he is not a person aggrieved and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of No Objection Certificate. 26. There is yet another aspect of the matter liable to be taken into consideration, undisputedly after absorption of respondent no. 4 in the NOIDA he was relieved from his parent department and his lien with the parent department ceased. Considering a somewhat similar controversy in the case of Jamil Ahmed Vs. Industrial Development Commissioner and Principal Secretary & Ors. 2004 (13) SCC 736 , where a Senior Inspector in Railway Protection Force was initially deputed to NOIDA and subsequently absorbed, this Court after analysing the provisions of 1981 Regulations while holding the appointment on deputation and subsequent absorption in NOIDA was permissible, observed that such a employee can not be put in a position which results in his being an employee neither of the Authority nor of the parent department. It may be relevant to reproduce observations made in Paragraph 9 of the reports. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we need not go in depth into the question sought to be urged on behalf of the Authority, for, we are of the view that the appellants having resigned from the Railways and having been absorbed in the Authority eight years back, can not be put in a position, for no fault of his, which results in his being an employee neither of the Authority nor of his parent department. The appellant cannot be made to suffer for the discrepancy, if any, assuming there is any such deficiency which is now pleaded as a reason by the Authority.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. The argument is based on an isolated reading of Regulation 16(2)(i) which is impermissible. It is well settled that a provision is required to be read in whole and not in part and in isolation to the other parts of the provision. The entire provision is required to be read out harmoniously . Regulation 16 (i) (c) clearly provides that recruitment to any post under the Authority can be made by deputation. If the provisions of Regulation 16 are to be read in a manner suggested by learned counsel for the appellant it would render Clause 16 (i) (c) totally redundant. It is well settled principle of law that any particular portion of provision cannot be read in isolation in a manner so as to render the other part of the same provision totally redundant. Similar situations exist under Clause 16 (2) (ii) and (iii) providing for appointment on post falling under Group B and C . If the provisions of Regulation 16 are read in the mode and manner suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, the provisions of Section 16 (i) (c) would be rendered totally redundant in respect of posts falling under Group B and C as well. Regulation 16 is intended to provide the modes of recruitment and combined reading of the entire regulations makes it amply clear that an appointment to a post falling either under Group A, B and C can very well be made on deputation17. The decision to absorb respondent no. 4 was taken by the State Government exercising the powers under the U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 5 of the U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984 provides that any Government servant may be permitted to be absorbed in the services of undertaking in which the employee is on deputation, if he applied to the Government for his absorption in the undertaking before expiry of three years from the date of commencement of his deputation or before the date on which he attains the age of 53 years whichever is earlier and the undertaking concerned also moved the Government for his absorption within such period and the Government agrees to such absorption in public interestNo doubt respondent no.4 was not a government servant and Absorption Rules are applicable only to a government servant, but the issue need not detain us for the reason that there are another set of Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Parishad Ke Sewako Ka Sashan Evam Anya Upkarmo Me Samvilayan Viniyam 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 1987 Regulations), which is a Statutory Regulation framed under the provisions of Section 79(c) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948, whereunder the employees of corporation can be absorbed in the service of State Government or in other undertakings of Government or corporations in the same manner as employees of the Government can be absorbed under Absorption Rules, 198421. From a perusal of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the power of appointment of officers and employees lies with the Authority subject to such control and restrictions as may be determined by general or special orders of State Government. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to place before us any such general or special orders of the State Government whereunder the power of appointment which includes power of appointment by deputation is restricted. Contrary thereto, Regulation 16(1)(c) of 1981 Regulations gives express power to the NOIDA to make appointment on deputation which is one of source recognized under the sources of recruitment. Once the deputation as a source of recruitment is available under the Rules of Recruitment, we do not see any impediment in assuming the power of absorption of a deputationist with the Authority by necessary intendment or implication, under Act of 1976 and 1981 Regulations framed thereunderSection 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1976 is applicable to Act of 1976 by virtue of Section 12 of the said Act.1987 Regulations having been framed under the provisions of Section 79(c) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948, a parliamentary enactment authorizing absorption of employees of erstwhile U.P. Power Corporation in Government undertakings or other Statutory Corporations, in view of provisions of Section 80 of 1981 Regulations read with Section 41 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1976, not only respondent no. 2 is bound by every direction issued by the State Government from time to time, the appointment of respondent no. 4 in NOIDA on deputation and his subsequent absorption under the orders of the State Government cannot be faulted with or can be held to be in violation of 1981 Regulations. The first issue stands answered accordingly25. For the aforesaid facts and reasons the challenge made by the appellants to the appointment and absorption of respondent no. 4 is not tenable and they have no locus standi in the matter. It may be relevant to refer to the observations made by this Court in the case Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. AIR 1976 SC 578 , relied upon by the High Court, holding that unless injury is suffered personally a person can not be said to be aggrieved and has no locus standi.In the light of above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore, he is not a person aggrieved and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of No Objection Certificate26. There is yet another aspect of the matter liable to be taken into consideration, undisputedly after absorption of respondent no. 4 in the NOIDA he was relieved from his parent department and his lien with the parent department ceased. Considering a somewhat similar controversy in the case of Jamil Ahmed Vs. Industrial Development Commissioner and Principal Secretary & Ors. 2004 (13) SCC 736 , where a Senior Inspector in Railway Protection Force was initially deputed to NOIDA and subsequently absorbed, this Court after analysing the provisions of 1981 Regulations while holding the appointment on deputation and subsequent absorption in NOIDA was permissible, observed that such a employee can not be put in a position which results in his being an employee neither of the Authority nor of the parent department. It may be relevant to reproduce observations made in Paragraph 9 of the reportsOn the facts and circumstances of this case, we need not go in depth into the question sought to be urged on behalf of the Authority, for, we are of the view that the appellants having resigned from the Railways and having been absorbed in the Authority eight years back, can not be put in a position, for no fault of his, which results in his being an employee neither of the Authority nor of his parent department. The appellant cannot be made to suffer for the discrepancy, if any, assuming there is any such deficiency which is now pleaded as a reason by the Authority.