TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government's Power Upheld: Appellant's Appointment Justified, Not Disqualified; Respondent's Petition Lacked Merit.</h1> <h3>B. Srinivasa Reddy Versus Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and Ors.</h3> B. Srinivasa Reddy Versus Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and Ors. - (2006) 11 SCC 731 Issues Involved:1. Locus of the unregistered Trade Union: Maintainability.2. Writ of Quo Warranto.3. Contractual appointment/powers of the Government.4. Legal Malice.5. 'Until further orders' appointment.Detailed Analysis:1. Locus of the unregistered Trade Union: Maintainability:The court examined whether an unregistered trade union had the locus standi to file the writ petition. The respondent association was recognized but not registered at the time of filing the writ petition. The court noted that any concerned person can file a writ of quo warranto. The High Court relied on the right to form associations and consequently file a writ in quo warranto proceedings. The court referenced several cases, including Mahinder Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and Coinpar v. General Manager, Telecom District, which held that unregistered associations do not have the fundamental right to approach the court under Article 226. The court concluded that the employees' union approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts and making false averments about its registration status. Therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.2. Writ of Quo Warranto:The court analyzed whether a writ of quo warranto could be issued to challenge an appointment made 'until further orders' and whether there was a clear violation of law in the appointment. The court held that the power to appoint the Managing Director of the Board is vested in the Government under Section 4(2) of the Act, and neither the Act nor the Rules prescribed any mode or tenure of appointment. The court found that the High Court erred in issuing a writ of quo warranto as there was no clear violation of law. The court also noted that the official memorandum dated 23.12.1994 applied only to government servants and not to employees of statutory boards. The court emphasized that the appellant had the requisite qualifications and experience for the post, and the appointment was made in accordance with the Act and the Rules.3. Contractual appointment/powers of the Government:The court examined the Government's power to make contractual appointments. It was noted that the Government has the undoubted power to make contractual appointments until further orders. The court referenced several cases, including Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India and P.K. Sandhu v. Shiv Raj V. Patil, which held that the State can enter into contracts of temporary employment and impose special terms. The court concluded that the appointment of the appellant on a contractual basis was valid and within the Government's power.4. Legal Malice:The court addressed the allegations of legal malice in the appointment of the appellant. It was argued that the appointment was made without reasonable cause and was motivated by personal animosity. The court found that the allegations of legal malice were unsustainable and based on a misunderstanding of the law and facts. The court emphasized that the appointment was made in the larger public interest and was justified by the urgency of the situation, including impending negotiations with the World Bank. The court also noted that the writ petition was motivated by personal animosity, as evidenced by the false complaints lodged by the second respondent against the appellant.5. 'Until further orders' appointment:The court considered whether an appointment made 'until further orders' was valid. It was argued that such an appointment should have a specific period and not be open-ended. The court referenced Article 310(2) of the Constitution, which allows for contractual appointments with specific terms. The court concluded that the appointment of the appellant 'until further orders' was valid and within the Government's discretion. The court also noted that the post of Managing Director is a highly responsible position, and the Government has the authority to make appointments based on the exigencies of administration.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside. The court held that the appellant was not disqualified for the appointment, and there was no violation of statutory provisions. The writ petition filed by the respondents was found to be motivated and lacking in bona fides. The court emphasized that the Government has the power to make contractual appointments and that the appointment of the appellant was justified and made in the larger public interest. The court also noted that the Government or the Board would be at liberty to consider the candidature of the appellant for future appointments on a contract basis.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
