SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
[2020] 1 S.C.R. 542, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 802 of 2020)
JANUARY 29, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Service
Regulations, 1981 – Regn. 16 – U.P. Industrial Development Act,
1976 – ss.3, 5 and 19 – Respondent no. 4 was appointed on the
post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation in NOIDA and
was subsequently absorbed – Appellants filed writ petition laying
challenge to the appointment of respondent no. 4 – The High Court
dismissed the writ petition – On appeal, held: s.5 of the Act of 1976
makes it 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 – Regn. 16(1)(c) of the 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, there is no 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 thereunder – Besides, in view of the provisions
of s. 80 of 1981 Regulations r/w. s.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.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. From a perusal of the Section 5 of the U.P.
Industrial Development Act, 1976 provisions, it is clear that the
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 542
542
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
543
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.
The appellants failed to place before this Court 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 the New
Okhla Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations,
1981 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, there
is no 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
thereunder. [Para 21] [551-E-F]
2. Besides this Regulation 80 of 1981 Regulations provides
that these Regulations are subject to the provisions of any Rule
made by the State Government under the Act of 1976 as directions
issued by State Government under Section 41 of U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973 or to the provisions of any
other law made on the subject by an Act of Legislature of Uttar
Pradesh or the Parliament. [Para 22] [551-G-H; 552-A]
3. 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. [Para 22] [553-B-C]
SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
4. Question of maintainability of challenge to appointment
and subsequent absorption at the behest of appellants has also
been raised by 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. [Para 23] [553-D-E]
5. 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. [Para 24] [553-E-G]
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir
Ahmed & Ors. AIR 1976 SC 578 : [1976] 3 SCR 58 ;
Jamil Ahmed v. Industrial Development Commissioner
and Principal Secretary & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 736
– relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1976] 3 SCR 58
relied on
Para 25
(2004) 13 SCC 736
relied on
Para 25
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 802 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition (Service
Bench) No. 295 of 2015.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
R. Venkata Ramani, Sr. Adv., Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ravi
Chandra Prakash, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Praveen Vignesh, Vijay Pratap
Singh, Yashoraj Bhundela, Ikshit Singhal, Ms. Vani Vyas, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati (AAG), Salman Khurshid, Sr. Advs.,
Ms. Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma, Ravindra Kumar, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi,
Abdul Qddir, Ms. Sharma Usmani, Zulnoor Ahmed, Ibad Mushtaq,
Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the
High Court1 dated 08.02.2017 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the
appellants laying a challenge to the appointment of respondent no. 4 on
the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation in New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘NOIDA’)
and his subsequent absorption.
3. The appellants are presently posted as Assistant Project
Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA.
4. On a request made by respondent no. 4, who was employed as
a Sub-Divisional Officer with U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., seeking
appointment on a vacant post of Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA,
State Government, vide letter dated 13.02.2014 required the NOIDA to
appoint him on the said post on deputation for a period of three years.  In
pursuance to the aforesaid letter, an appointment order dated 19.02.2014
was issued by NOIDA and respondent no 4 was permitted to join the
said
post.  Subsequently vide letter dated 16.02.2015, respondent no. 2
made a recommendation to respondent no. 1 for absorption of respondent
no. 4.  Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the High Court
by way of a Writ Petition praying, inter-alia,  for:-
(i)
 Quashing the recommendation letter dated 16.02.2015 for
absorption.
(ii)
 Quashing  letter dated 19.02.2014 appointing respondent no
4 on deputation on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical).
1 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
(iii)
 Commanding the respondents to fill up the post of Project
Engineer in accordance with Service Rules and to restrain
respondent no. 4 from functioning as Project Engineer
(Electrical) in NOIDA.
5. During the pendency of Writ Petition before the High Court,
respondent no. 4 was absorbed on the post of Project Engineer
(Electrical) vide order dated 07.05.2015, issued by the respondent no.1.
This order was challenged in the Writ Petition by way of an amendment
application which was allowed by the High Court.
6. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.02.2017, the High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition.
7. The core issue which arises for our consideration is whether
the recruitment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Project Engineer
(Electrical) on deputation and his subsequent absorption on the said post
is permissible under NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981.
8. Incidentally another issue which arises is whether the appellants
are eligible for being promoted to the post on which respondent no. 4 has
been appointed and whether the appellant’s right of promotion gets
eclipsed by absorption of respondent no. 4 and in case the appellants
were not found eligible for promotion whether any challenge to
appointment or absorption of respondent no. 4 would be maintainable at
their behest.
9. NOIDA was constituted by the State Government by means of
notification issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Development
Act, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1976’) enacted by the
State legislature to provide for constitution of an authority for development
of certain areas in the State, into Industrial and Urban Township.
10. Section 5 of the Act of 1976 vests with the Authority the
power to appoint officers/employees for performance of its functions
including determining their grades and designations subject to control/
restrictions of the State Government through general/special orders.
Section 19 of the Act of 1976 vests with the Authority the power to
make regulations with the previous approval of the State Government.
11. In exercise of powers vested under Section 19 of the Act of
1976, NOIDA has framed the New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1981
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
547
Regulations’) to govern the conditions of service of conditions of its
employees.  Regulation 16 of 1981 Regulations provides for sources of
recruitment to all posts.  The same reads as under :-
“ Section 16 – Sources of Recruitment
16. (1)  Recruitment to any post under the Authority may be
made from any of the sources -
(a) by direct recruitment;
(b) by promotion from amongst the employees occupying post
carrying a lower scale through a departmental test or an
interview of selection or in any other manner specified by the
Authority.
(c) by deputation or re-employment or on contractual basis.
(d) from any other source as approved by the Authority.
(2) (i) Sixty six percent of Group ‘A’ posts shall be filled in by
direct recruitment and the remaining thirty four percent posts
shall be filled in by promotion from amongst the employees
upon the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit
and fulfillment of the requisite qualifications and also subject
to the condition of the particular employee having worked
for at least a period of two years on a post carrying scale of
pay next below. If at any time it is found that sufficient number
of employees are not available for filling in the percentage
prescribed for promotion such posts may be filled in by direct
recruitments;
(ii) Various posts falling under Group ‘B’ will be filled in such
a way as to ensure that fifty percent of the posts are filled in
the promotion from amongst the employees and
such promotion
shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection
of the unfit and fulfillment of the requisite qualifications and
also subject to the condition of the particular employee having
worked on a carrying the scale of pay next below for a period
of at least two years;
(iii) Posts under Group ‘C carrying lowest scale of pay shall
be filled in to the extent of twenty five percent by promotion
from amongst the employees belonging to the Group ‘D’ on
SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit and
fulfillment of the requisite qualifications and also subject to
the condition of the particular employee having worked on a
post carrying a scale of pay next below for at least a period
of two years. The remaining seventy five percent of such posts
shall be filled in by direct recruitment;
(iv) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained the
Authority shall have full power to modify the source of
recruitment or the percentage of promotion or direct
recruitment in relation to any posts or class of posts.”
12. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant
that since Clause 16 (2) provides that 60% of Group ‘A’ posts are to be
filled in by direct recruitment and remaining 34% by way of promotion
from amongst the existing employees on the basis of seniority, the post
of Project Engineer (Electrical) which is a Group ‘A’ post could not
have been filled in by way of deputation and thus the appointment of
respondent no. 4 on the said post on deputation is illegal and directly in
the teeth of Service Regulations.
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 deputation.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
549
14. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
NOIDA had formulated a Recruitment and Promotion Policy in the year
1993, wherein the mode of recruitment provided was by way of
promotion, direct recruitment and deputation. Subsequently another
Recruitment and Promotion Policy was framed in 2005, which provided
that the post of Project Engineer in the Engineering cadre was required
to be filled in 100% by promotion. Thus, the three sources of recruitment
contemplated in the 1993 Policy were reduced to one source in the 2005
and thus thereafter no recruitment could have been made on the post
Project Engineer by way of deputation.
15. In the counter affidavit filled on behalf of the NOIDA, it has
been stated that the Recruitment and Promotion Policy, 2005 was sent
for approval of the State Government.  Vide letter dated 18.10.2007, the
State Government while clarifying that the Board is competent to frame
its Recruitment and Promotion Policy directed the NOIDA to ensure
that Policy is not inconsistent with the provisions of Regulations, 1981. It
is the specific case setup by NOIDA in its counter affidavit that the
Policy could not be implemented in view of the directions issued by the
State Government, since the proposal to do away with direct recruitment
to Group ‘A’ posts and to fill them only on the basis of promotion was
inconsistent with the NOIDA Service Regulations 16 (i) (c) of the 1981
Regulations.  In view of the specific case setup
by NOIDA that the
Policy of 2005 was never implemented being inconsistent with the 1981
Regulations and that no part of Regulation 16 of 1981 Regulations has
been amended till date, the reliance placed by the appellants upon the
2005 Policy is completely misplaced and erroneous.  Regulation 16 as it
stands (quoted hereinabove) that holds field with regard to source of
recruitment in the Authority.  The State Government has taken the same
stand in its counter affidavit.
16. Now coming to the issue of absorption of respondent no. 4
Regulation no. 16 of 1981 expressly provides that recruitment can be
made either by deputation or direct recruitment or from any other source.
Regulation 2 deals with applicability of these Regulations and expressly
provides for posting/recruitment on deputation basis and  absorption of
such persons in the service of NOIDA.  It may be useful to extract
Regulation no. 2 which reads as under:-
“2. These regulations shall apply to every whole time employee
of the Authority except a person working with the Authority
SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
on deputation from the Union Government or any State
Government or a Local Authority or a Corporation or any
other organization, by whatever name called, and such a
person shall continue to be governed by the rules applicable
to him in relation to his service under his parent department
or organization, by whatever name called unless such person
is absorbed in the service of the Authority as a regular
employee.”
17. 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 interest.
18. A specific stand has been taken by the State Government as
well as NOIDA in the counter affidavit that the State Government has
exercised the power under the U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984 by issuing
orders of absorption of
respondent no. 4 in the NOIDA.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent
no. 4 was employee of erstwhile U.P. Power Corporation which is not a
government department hence he was not a government employee and
thus could not be absorbed in the service of NOIDA under the Absorption
Rules, 1984 as the said Rules are applicable only in the case of a
government employee.  No 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
551
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, 1984.
20. Reference at this stage may be made to provisions of Section
5 of the Act of 1976 which reads as under :-
“ 5   Staff of the Authority –
(1)
Subject to such control and restrictions as may be
determined by general or special orders of the State
Government, Authority may appoint such member of
officers and employees as may be necessary for
performance of its functions and may determine its
grades and designations.
(2)
Subject as aforesaid the officers and other employees
of Authority shall be entitled to receive from the funds
of the Authority, such salaries and allowances and shall
be governed by such other conditions of service as may
be agreed upon with the Authority.”
21. 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 thereunder.
22. Besides this Regulation 80 of 1981 Regulations provides that
these Regulations are subject to the provisions of any Rule made by the
State Government under the Act of 1976 as directions issued by State
Government under Section 41 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development
SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Act, 1973 or to the provisions of any other law made on the subject by
an Act of Legislature of Uttar Pradesh or the Parliament.  Regulation 80
of 1981 Regulations reads as under:-
“80. For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that these
Regulations shall be subject to any Rules made by the State
Government under the Act or any directions issued by the
State Government under Section 41 of the U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973 or to the provisions of
any other law made on the subject by an Act of Legislature of
Uttar Pradesh or the Parliament.
Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act reads
as under:-
“41. Control by State Government :-
(1) The [Authority),the Chairman or the (Vice-Chairman] shall
carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time
to time by the State Government for the efficient
administration of this Act.
(2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers and
discharge 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.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
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
SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
relevant to refer to the observations made by this Court in the case
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed &
Ors.2,  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.3, 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
2 AIR 1976 SC 578
3 2004 (13) SCC 736

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
555
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.”
27.  As a result of our aforesaid discussion, we do not find any
merit in this appeal and the same accordingly stands dismissed with no
order as to costs.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal dismissed.
SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]