evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
DR. P.N. DUBEY AND ORS.

'!"

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

FEBRUARY 6, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) B

Service Law :

Madhya Pradesh Services (Gazetted) Recmitment Rules, 1966:

Recmitment/Promotiorr-Post of Assistant Directors--50% direct c

recmitment-50% promotion from Veterinary Assistant Surgeons-Govemment deciding to make 100% promotions--R.ules not amendeeanwhile Notification issued for filling 50% of vacancies by direct recruitment-Notification challenged-Held, since on the date of Notification, the

~ Rules stood unamended, 50% of the vacani:ies eannarked for direct recmit- D ment in accordance with Rules-No inte1fere11ce called for. ..

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3349(N) of 1981.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.81 of the Madhya Pradesh E High Court in Misc. Petition No. 812 of 1980.

Tirupurari Ray and Vineet Kumar for the Appellants.

--r

~ Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents.

F The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, made on February 10, 1981 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 812/80. The appellants were working as Veteri- G nary Assistant Surgeons in the Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Services Gazetted. The Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Services is governed by the rules called Madhya Pradesh Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966.

The channel of recruitment to the post of Assistant Director Veterinary Service was from two sources, namely, direct recruitment and promotion in the.proportion of one is to one. An advertisement came to be made by H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1997] 1 S.C;'R.

A the Madhya Pradesh Public Service. Commission of 28 posts of Assistant < directors. The appellants had challenged the validity of the Notification and selection on the ground that the Government had, by then decided, to provide recruitment to the post of Assistant Directors by promotion with ..

100% from the feeder cadre, namely, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. It is

B found, as a fact, by the High Court that as on the date of the notification, the rules were not amended. Unamended Rules provide that the recruitment was to be made from two sources, namely, direct recruitment and by

fpromotion at a ratio of one is to one. Consequently, the advertisement for recruitment of Assistant Directors by the Public Service Commission and selection and appointment of the candidates were valid in law. The same c came to be challenged in this appeal. It is seen that undoubtedly though decision was taken by the Government, the Rules have not been amended.

Therefore, the advertisement made for recruitment to fill up the posts of Assistant Directors, by direct recruitment and consequential selection as per the unamended Rules for the 50% of the vacancies earmarked for

D direct recruitment was in accordance with the aforesaid rules. As a conse- "\ quence, the view taken by the High Court is consistent with the Rules. We "' do not find any illegality warranting interference.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal dismissed.
.· ~

STATE OF RAJASTHAN A v.

TARACHAND AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 11, 1997

(K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND B

G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) ..

Se1Vice Law :

Rajasthan Administrative Se1Vice Rules, 1954 : c R.28-B-f'romotioit-Service record of official for period under consideratio11-Amendment made i11 the ntle subsequent to promotion-Held, the mle requires that record of officer should be outstanding or co11sistently very good and that would imply that it should be so for the entire period under co11sideratio1t-Amendment i11 the mle made on 30.11.1991, being subsequent D ., _.,. to orders of promotions could not apply to the cases prior to the amendments came into force.

Shambhu Si11gh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, [1995) Supp. 2 SCC 431; relied on.

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3551 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.93 of the Rajasthan High

.): Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 6038 of 1992.

F Aruneshwar Gupta and Manoj K. Das for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

The controversy raised in this case is already covered by a judgment G

of this Court reported in Shamblm Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, ...._,,.

(1995) supp. 2 SCC 431, wherein this Court, on consideration of rule 28-B . of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954 and its explanation as it stood prior to November 30, 1991, had interpreted and held that the rule requires that the record of the officer should be outstanding or consistently H 1157

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1997) 1 S.C.R.

A very good and that would imply that it should be so for the entire period under consideration. The view of the High Court, therefore, was upheld and held that the amendment made on 30-11-1991, being subsequent to the orders of promotions which were challenged in those cases could not apply to the cases prior to the amendment came into force. The same ratio B applies to the facts in this case. Therefore, we do not find any ground warranting issuance of notice for interference.

The Petition is accordingly dismissed.

R.P.

Petition dismissed.
' A

THIRUMALAI TRANSPORT SERVICE ETC. 'f - v.

P. SAMIAPPA GOUNDER AND ORS. ETC.

JANUARY 24, 1997

: B

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Rules: -+

Rule 155-A(6)--:Grant of pennif-Regimzal Development Authority to c give reasons-Absence of reasons in the order passed by the authority-High Court holding it a nullity and non-est-Held : There is no illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 476-477 of 1997 Etc.

D From the judgment and Order dated 28.6.96 of the Madras High ~.~ Court in W.A. Nos. 1048-49 of 1995.

Soli J. Sorabjee, V.C. Palanisamy and L.K. Pandey for the Appellants.

E Nand Kumar, V. Balaji, A.T.M. Sampath, A, Mariarputham and V.

Krishnamurthy for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F IN CA NOS. 476-477197@ SLP (C) NOS. 14713-14/96.

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

G There was no order passed or action pursued in terms of Rule 155- A ( 6) of the Motor Vehicles Rules which envisages that the authority is required to draw up the proceedings to consider the merits and demerits of the applications and to give reasons for grant of the permit. The Division Bench of the High Court has pointed out in the impugned

).-._

judgment 28th June, 1996 that since no reasons were recorded in the H proceedings purported to have been held on 9th May, 1984, order dated 526

THIRUMALAI TRANSPORT SERVICE v. P.S. GOUNDE; R 527

August 1, 1984 passed by the Regional Development Authority the grant A of permit was not valid and being a nullity it is 11011 est. The High Court has observed as under:

"We have pointed out that records do not contain any proceedings or any reasons except the order as notified which has already been extracted. There is not disagreement between the parties regarding B non-existence of the proceedings containing reasons for selecting the first respondent and rejecting the other applications".

In view of the above finding all the contentions raised on the legality of the Division Bench judgment, based thereon, per force do not arise.

Accordingly, we do not find from this perspective, any illegality in the judgment passed by the Divisions Bench warranting interference.

As regards CA.No.478 of 1997 @ SLP (C) No.23207 of 1996, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition holding .that the entire proceedc

ings is a nullity. Under those circumstances, no writ can issued as was D sought for.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

G.N.

Appeals are dismissed.
PRAMOD KUMAR MANTRI AND ANR.

\'.

STATE OF ORISSA

JANUARY 27, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B

Criminal Law :

Penal Code, 1860 :

Ss. 302 r/w. 34, 304 Pan ll-Murder--<:onviction-Assault-No cor- C roborating evidence by the doctor as to dragging of the deceased by the accused-Evidence of eye-witnesses discrepant on material .particulars-Cross-examination of PW 1 revealed there was no blood stain outside the house-Had there been dragging there would be trail of blood-Hence conviction and sentence of appellants nos. 2 and 3 for an D offence under S.304, Pmt 11 set aside.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos. 127-28 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.95 of the Orissa High Court E in Crl.A. No. 109-110 of 1989.

Janaranjan Das and K.N. Tripathy for the Appellants.

Indrajit Roy and P.N. Misra for the Respondent.

The following order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

By order dated November 8, 1996 the petition was dismissed as

, against the first petitioner, Bhikari Behera and notice was ordered in respect of the remaining two petitioners, namely; Pramod Kumar Mantri, Bhagirathi Rout. The case of the prosecution is that on May 28, 1988 at H 567

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[199711 S.C.R.

I A about 10.00 a.m., all the three accused armed with Thengas entered into the house of deceased Bauribandhu. A-1 had hit him on the head twice and threw him down. Thereafter, the three accused had dragged the deceased outside the house, when wife and son of the deceased raised alarm, they ran away from the place, FIR was lodged at about 11.30 A.M.

B and thereafter investigation was conducted. The appellants and two others have been charged under Section 302 read with under Section 149 I.P.C.

The Courts below convicted the appellants for an offence pun.ishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. As regards the assault by the appellants, there is no corroborating evidence by the doctor as to dragging of the deceased by the accused. Even the evidence of the eye-witnesses is C discrepant on material particulars. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were standing behind PW -2. If really all the three accused had entered into the house all of them would have attacked the deceased. That is no the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants shared the D common intention with A-1 to kill the deceased. Even the evidence of

PW -1 that they entered the house and dragged the deceased is not reliable since the admission in the cross-examination is that there was no blood stain outside the house. Had the dragging really been there, there would be trail of blood.

E The appeals are accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 for an offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC stand set aside.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.
-1.

GURLINGAPP A AND ORS.

' v. .·~

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION

OFFICER, GULBARG -

JANUARY 28, 1997

(K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND

G.B. PATTANAIK, J.J.]

Land Acquisition Act 1894 : Compensation-Award of-Court to conc sider the relative values of the lands in the neighbourhood, the soil condition and >ame or similar advantageous features 011 comparable prices--ln the instani case, the compensation awarded is almost equal to the one awarded in respect of lands acquired for the same project and situated in the same

villag~Hence no inteiference called for.

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2846 of 1997. .'- ...

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.96 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A. No. 190 of 1995.

E Mrs. Rajni K. Prasad (T.C. Sharma) (NP) for the Petitioners.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

F Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ... ,_ was published in October 1977 for construction of Amerja Project. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 11 awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,000 per acre. On reference, the District Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,300 per acre for dry lands and Rs. 9,820 per

G acre for Bgayat Lands (cultivable lands). On appeal, the High Court -- dismissed the same and confirmed the award of the reference Court. Thus, this spl'cial leave petition.

• It is contended for the petitioners that in similar circumstances, the ,_ Additional Civil Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12,000 per H acre for the irrigated land and Rs. 8,000 per acre for the dry lands and 652

... ...

GURLINGAPPA v. ASSIT. COMMR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 653

confirmed by the judgment of the High Court in RFA Nos. 1160 and A 1825/92 and, therefore, the petitioners also are entitled to the same compensation. We find no force in the contention. It is now well settled legal position that in compulsory acquisition, the Court would sit in the armchair of a willing purchaser and would ask whether as a reasonable prud;:nt vendee, he would offer in the open market the rate of market value proposed by him in respect of the land under acquisition. The Court requires to consider the relative values of the lands in the neighbourhood,

the soil condition and same or similar advantageous features on comparable prices. The High Court has pointed out .in its judgment that there is no evidence to show that the lands referred to in those judgments bear any similarity to the lands in question. On the other hand, it is pointed out that for the same project and for the lands situated in the same village another award for a sum of Rs. 6,320 per acre was passed by the Additional Civil Judge and the same has been upheld by the High Court.

Under These circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the determination cf the compensation warranting interference.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

G.N.

Petition dismissed.
SHIBA KUMAR DUTT A AND ORS.

A v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 24, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Pay scales-Fitters" (T & G}-Drawing higher pay than Fitte1~Later nomenclatztre of all of them removed and fused i1ito one category of Fit- C ter-Erstwhile Fitters (T & G) claiming higher pay-Held, nomenclature and fitment is one of executive policies of Govenunent-Courts cannot go into them a11d evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay prescribed for each category unless the actio11 is arbitrary and there is invidious discrimi11atio11 betwee11 persons similarly sitztated-111 the circumstances Tribunal is justified in refusing to go illto the question.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5081 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.95 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in 0.A. No. 213 of 1992.

K.C. Dua for the Petitioners.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

This special leave petition arises from the orders of the Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, made on June 21, 1995 in OA No. 213 of 1992 and the Review Order dated July 26, 1996.

The admitted' position is that the petitioners, who are working as G Fitters (T & G), had sought to be fused in the category of, and to be on par with, Jig Borers. They sought equal pay on par with them. They contend that they were drawing higher pay-scales than the Fitter; instead of elevating their cadre and placing them in the Higher pay-scales, they have. been brought them down in the category as a Fitter after removing H 467

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1997) 2 S.C.R.

A the two nomenclatures. Thereby, it is arbitrary on account of invidious discrimination. The Third Pay Commission had gone into that aspect of the matter and fixed the scales of pay. Thereafter, admittedly, Expert Classification Committee and Anomalies Removal Committee had also gone into the matter and made distinction between them. Subsequently, B nomenclature of all of them were removed and fused into one category, namely, Fitter. Nomenclature and fitment is one of executive policy of the Government. Unless the action is arbitrary or there is invidious discrimination between persons similarly situated, doing same type of work, as is pointed out, it would be difficult for the Courts to go into the question of . equation of posts or fitment into a particular scale of pay. They must be C left to be decided by the Expert Committees and Government. The Courts cannot go into them and evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay prescribed for el'.ch category. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in refusing to go into the question.

e special leave petition is aceordingly dismissed.

R.P.

Petition dismissed.
A.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

HYDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR

P. VENKAIAH AND ORS.

APRIL 28, 1997

(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Compensation-Award of-Reliance on sale deeds by Courts below for C enhancing compensation-Held, examination of the persons connected with the sale and parties to the documents necessary-Hence award of reference court as modified is set aside-Matter remitted to Reference Court for disposal of the matter afresh after giving opportunity to parties to adduce evidence afresh and considering the same.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3404 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.93 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. No. 2064 1986.

Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General and B. Parthasarthy for the Appellant.

C.K. Sucharita and B. Kanta Rao for the Respondents.

The following Order or' the Court was delivered :

Substitution allowed.

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 G (for short, the 'Act') was published o_n July 7, 1977, acquiring 14 acres 32 guntas of land of Bachiragh village near Suryapet Nalgonda District (A.P.) for the purpose of constructing a Bus Stand Complex. The Land Acquisition officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 7,500 per acre. The Sub-Court on reference awarded the considerated compensation @ Rs. 3.60 lacs per H acre. The High Court reduced it to Rs. 2,25,000 per acre. It is now not in

A.P.S.R.T.C., HYDERABAD v. P. VENKAIAH 1055

dispute that Exs. A-2, A-9 and A-11 were relied on to enhance the A compensation. Admittedly, none of the persons connected with the documents, namely, neither the vendee nor the vendor has been examined. This Court in Kumari Veeraiah & Ors. v. State of A.P., [1995) 4 SCC 136 held that in the absence of adduction of any evidence through. the vendor or the vendee, the document per se cannot be relied upon. This was reiterated in B State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad [1996) 6 SCC 197. Acceptance of certified copy of the sale deed under Section 51-A relates only to the production of the original sale deeds but it does not dispense with proof of the con.tents of the documents, relative features vis-a-vis 193, the land under acquisition. All is needed to be proved by examining the persons connected with the same and parties to the document. Following the above C ratio, we hold that the view taken by the High Court and that of the reference Court is entirely illegal.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and award of the reference Court as modified stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the reference Court for disposal the matter afresh after an opportunity is given D to adduce evidence afresh and the same is considered. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.
........ )

SUBHASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARI AND ORS.

0 v. ;.;,

RAM MILAN AND ORS.

JANUARY 31, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

Lease-Grant of-Cancelled by the Commissioner-<1ovemmellt setting

~- aside the Commissioner order----But order of Govemment set stayed by High Court-Pursuant to High Court's directions auction conducted-Third parties c inducted-Plea of appellants to work out the lease for residual period-Such direction could /wt be given in the absence of the third parties who are not before the Court-Respondent Govemment off ening to refund the amount deposited by appella11ts-Directio11 issued for refund.

D 1997.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 694 of

... • From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.96 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 8654 of 1995.

E Anis Ahmed Khan and W.A. Nomani for the Appellants.

Yogeshwar Prasad, R.C. Verma, R.B. Misra and Anil Kr. Gupta-II for the Respondents .

. The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated May 24, 1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No. 8654/95.

The admitted position is that though lease was granted lo the appel- ...

G !ants on December 5, 1994 for one year and was executed, as admitted by the respondents, on the said date, it expired on December 5, 1995. It is contended that the lease granted to the appellants was cancelled by the Commissioner on February 17, 1995 and on a revision filed by the appel- .4 !ants to the State Government, by order dated March 23, 1995, the order H of the Commissioner was set aside. But unfortunately the operation of the 748

S.C. CHAUDHARI v. RAM MILAN 749

order of the Goyeniment as stayed by the High Court on May 21, 1995 A and it set aside the order of the Government by the impugned order. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the direction of the High Court the auctions were conducted and third parties have been inducted to work out the excavation of the sand; but they are not before us. Though there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that since . B the working of the period of the lease granted to the appellants was not .allowed to be fully utilised on !lccount of the orders passed by the courts or the Commissioner, the. time may be extended for the appellants to execute the .lease and work out the lease for the residue period, as stated earlier, since the third party rights have already been intervened, in their absence we cannot give. the direction as sought for. Under these cir- C cumstances, it is stated in the affidavit itself that the respondent-Government have offered refund of the amount deposited by the appellants as directed by the High Court. The respondents an; directed to refund the amount of Rs. 6,30,000.

We are constrained to dismiss the appeal. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal dismisse.d.