Case: SHRIPAL BHATI  Vs. STATE OF UP

3. The appellants are presently posted as Assistant Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA4. 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)(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 NOIDA5. 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 Court6. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.02.2017, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Court's reasoning:
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.