1976 (4) TMI 214 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of Krishna Moorthy's appointment and subsequent promotions.
2. Retrospective regularization of Krishna Moorthy's appointment.
3. Seniority claims by Patnaik and Mishra.
4. Delay and laches in filing the writ petitions.

Summary:

1. Validity of Krishna Moorthy's Appointment and Subsequent Promotions:

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Krishna Moorthy's appointment as an Assistant Engineer and his subsequent promotions. Krishna Moorthy was initially appointed as a "temporary Assistant Engineer on contract basis for a period of 3 years" on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. His service was later regularized retrospectively from January 19, 1959. The High Court had declared Krishna Moorthy's absorption and subsequent promotions as invalid, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision, stating that his appointment and promotions were in accordance with the rules.

2. Retrospective Regularization of Krishna Moorthy's Appointment:

The Court addressed whether the State Government had the power to regularize Krishna Moorthy's appointment retrospectively. The Court found that Krishna Moorthy's initial appointment complied with the relevant rules, and under Rule 19(b), the State Government had the authority to count his temporary service towards the prescribed period of probation. Thus, the retrospective regularization of his appointment was valid.

3. Seniority Claims by Patnaik and Mishra:

Patnaik and Mishra challenged Krishna Moorthy's seniority, claiming they should be accorded seniority over him. The Court noted that Krishna Moorthy was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on January 19, 1959, while Patnaik and Mishra were appointed on April 14, 1960. The Court upheld Krishna Moorthy's seniority, stating that his appointment and subsequent promotions were valid and in accordance with the rules.

4. Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petitions:

The Court addressed the issue of delay and laches, noting that the writ petitions were filed after a long delay. Krishna Moorthy's appointment was gazetted on March 14, 1962, and the writ petitions were filed on May 29, 1973. The Court found that Patnaik and Mishra brought a grievance too stale to merit redress and expressed concern over the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in such circumstances.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions. Patnaik and Mishra were ordered to pay costs to Krishna Moorthy, quantified at Rs. 2000, with each paying Rs. 1000. There was no order as to the costs of the Government.