Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


Supreme Court Cases

1995 SCC (2) 83 1995 SCALE (1)176

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


I.P. JAL NIGAM & ORS V. DURGA PRASAD SINGH & ORS [1995] RD-SC 21 (9 January 1995)



SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION: 1995 SCC (2) 83 1995 SCALE (1)176



ORDER 1.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order of the learned SingleJudge dated 14-1-1993 made in Writ Petition No. 8504 of 1987 with regardto the fourth option mentioned therein is clear which we have already extracted while allowing the appeal at page 20 of the paper book. Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant contends that while following the directions of the learned Single Judge, the Jal Nigam had constituted a Selection Committee and called the persons for interview which is not warranted under the order. He states that Regulation 16 of U.P Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1977 provides that in the case of recruitment by selection on the basis of interview alone, the candidates eligible for recruitment under these regulations are to appear before the Selection Committee of the Nigam and on the basis of the 84 recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Nigam shall draw up a list of candidates selected in order of merit.

The respondents need only to look into the record and not the basis of the interview. Rule 16 would not apply. The Nigam would, therefore, not be justified for making selection on the basis of interview. We find no force in this contention. In view of the fact that the selection is to be made in the light of option 4 which is now sought to be implemented as per orders of the learned Single Judge as upheld by this Court, necessarily a Committee has to be constituted and the Committee as contemplated under Rule 16 has been chosen to be the forum to consider the record of the eligible candidates besides being called for interview to adjudge their merit.

2.Under these circumstances there is no inconsistency between the actiontaken by the Nigam in implementing the order of this Court and the order of the learned Single Judge. It is, however, made clear that any of the contentions raised by the respondent/applicant seeking clarification of the order would not be an impediment for the Committee, while considering their cases for selection fairly and objectively without any prejudice. We hope and trust that the Committee will do well to consider their cases according to Rules and Regulations. IA is disposed of accordingly.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.