Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

BAHADUR SINGH NARODA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P. ORS.

Citation
1995 INSC 856
Decided
7 December 1995
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

Since the regularly selected candidates have already been appointed and taken charge, the limited relief for continuance cannot be granted.

Summary

The appellants, who were holding certain posts, filed an appeal against a decision of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal that ordered them to be continued in their positions until regularly selected candidates were appointed and took charge. The State filed a counter‑affidavit stating that the regular candidates had already been appointed and had assumed office. The court examined whether the limited relief sought—continuance of the appellants—could still be granted after the regular appointments were completed. Relying on the factual annexure showing the dates of assumption of charge, the court held that since the regular candidates were already in post, the purpose of the notice was no longer relevant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and no relief was granted.

Issues considered

  • Whether the appellants can be continued in their posts until the regularly selected candidates are appointed and take charge
  • Whether the limited relief sought can be granted after the regular candidates have already assumed office

Subjects

service lawcontinuanceappointmentadministrative tribunalreliefappeal dismissed

Judgment

A                 BAHADUR SINGH NARODA AND ORS.
                                       v.
                            STATE OF M.P. ORS.

                             DECEMBER 7, 1995

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

         Service Law:

         Employees holding certain posts till the appointment of regularly
C selected candidates-Claim for continuance on the posts-Held, relief cannot
  be granted since regularly selected candidates have been appointed and they
  have taken charge.

          The appellants filed the appeal against the judgment of the M.P.
    State Administrative Tribunal. The respondent State filed a counter af.
D   fidavit in response to the notice issued to it to show cause as to why the
    appellants should not be continued till the regularly selected candidates
    were appointed and took charge.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

E         HELD : Since the regularly selected candidates have already been
    appointed and have taken charge, the limited relief for which notice was
    issued cannot be granted. [315-A; BJ

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal Nos. 11818-
p   11820 of 1995.

          From the judgment and order dated 13.7.93 of M.P. Administrative -
    Tribunal Bench Bhopal in T.A. No. 15/88 O.A. No. 575/88 and 0.A. No.
    661/88.

G         Ashok Kr. Singh for the Appellants.

          Niraj Sharma and S.K. Agoihotri for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H         Leave granted.
                                        314
                     BAHADURSINGHNARODA v. STATE                           315

1          After .notice was issued confining to the question as to "why the .A
'   petitioners may not be continued till the regularly selected candidates are
    appointed and taken charge", counter-affidavit has been filed by one c:L.
    Khanna, Deputy D.S.E. in the office of the Joint Director, Public Instruc-
    tions, Bhopal Division, Bhopal (M.P.). It is stated therein that the regularly
    selected candidates have already been appointed and taken charge, vide
    Annexure R. In that Annexure, the respective dates on which the selected
                                                                                   B
    candidates have taken charge have been given.

          Under these circumstances, the limited relief for which notice was
    issued cannot be granted. The appeals are dismissed.

    R.P.                                                    Appeals dismissed.


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.