PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 23,2002
PRATAP SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA,BHAJAN LAL
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
MANJU MITTAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-435] [REFERRED TO]R HARINDRAKUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2014-11-271] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPA DEVI VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-465] [REFERRED TO]
SRIPATHMANATHAN SRIHARAN EX-MANAGING VS. SARANG S KALE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-273] [REFERRED TO]
MS. HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDIA CO. PVT. LTD. VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2017-7-266] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATI KNITWEARS PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKA ENTERPRISES VS. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-401] [REFERRED TO]
RASANTESHWAR SINGH DHARIWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-12-244] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE SPINNING CO LTD VS. R S PANDEY [LAWS(SC)-2005-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
M/S NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
RASHTRIYA VALMIKI SABHA (REGD.) VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-10-46] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND BALLABH PANT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY PANT NAGAR VS. DISTT CONSUMER PROTECTION FORUM UDHAM SINGH NAGAR [LAWS(UTN)-2005-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD HINIGORANI VS. THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SINHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2024-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
SETH SOORAJMAL JALAN BALIKA VIDYALAYA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
NANDINI SINHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
CHAVDA DHARMENDRA RAVJIBHAI VS. GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-164] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY THE AZHAGANPARAI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-155] [REFERRED TO]
V LIONAL SINGH VS. GENERAL MANAGER TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION MADURAI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-147] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
PROCESS EQUIPMENTS INDIA VS. H.P. MICRO & SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUDESH KUMARI VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
IHI CORPORATION VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-222] [REFERRED TO]
MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. VS. STATE OF HP AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-6-70] [REFERRED TO]
U P FOREST CORPORATION VS. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-261] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHNAZ AYURVEDICS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
MAWANA SUGAR LIMITED A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR DIVAULIYA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-306] [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO APPARAO CHATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
NOBLE IMPORT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
AMARNATH INDUSTRIES, KATHUA, JAMMU VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
AMITI GUPTA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-330] [REFERRED TO]
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KALANITHI MARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2014-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
NIHARIKA JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-7-352] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-3-194] [REFERRED TO]
PROGRESSIVE ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
R JEYAPRAKASAM VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2003-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2005-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL [LAWS(SC)-2013-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
BIJENDER KR GUPTA VS. CORPORATION BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-185] [REFERRED TO]
A.B. MAURI INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND POSLYA GAVIT VS. COMPETENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-563] [REFERRED TO]
SRI MAHANTH RAMASHRAY DAS SNAKOTTAR MAHAVIDYALAYA VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-95] [REFERRED TO]
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-690] [REFERRED TO]
NAZIR AHMAD DALAL AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2016-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDHARTH SAHIB SINGH VS. APEX COUNCIL OF DDCA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDAMBA RICE MILL VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. GODREJ & BOYEE MANUFACTURING CO. LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
S.S. SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-288] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYALAL AND COMPANY VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MPH)-2022-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
PACIFIC EXPORTS, KATNI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2020-2-96] [REFERRED TO]
STAR PAPER MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2006-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
M S MUNIVENKATAPPA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
DAILY DESHER KATHA TRUST VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
ANUKAMPA AVAS VIKAS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
JHARKHAND STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUPATI ISPAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2016-9-28] [REFERRED]
A KALIMUTHAN VS. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-406] [REFERRED]
M/S. RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2021-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
NILESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-3-301] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN AUTOMOBILES VS. CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER OF U.P.LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-266] [REFERRED TO]
BANASREE SAHA VS. SUMAN SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-3-161] [REFERRED TO]
V. RAJA SEKHAR VS. N. UGRAPPA [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2005-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
MUNA PANI VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-11-111] [REFERRED TO]
ARRUN KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2016-7-150] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT KUMAR VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2017-6-211] [REFERRED TO]
M/S MILK SPECIALTIES LTD. VS. UNITED BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2018-7-230] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-3-103] [REFERRED TO]
CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION VS. JOHN DORAI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-12-124] [REFERRED TO]
KELLOGG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-111] [REFERRED TO]
C MUTHUKUMAR VS. TAHSILDAR, MADURAI SOUTH TALUK AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-398] [REFERRED]
VARUN TECH INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2017-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
ABHA SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-515] [REFERRED TO]
AMITY BUSINESS SCHOOL VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION [LAWS(ALL)-2007-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
ASHIKA BUSINESS PVT. LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2024-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO APPARAO CHATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-7-708] [REFERRED TO]
S.K. TRADERS VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-238] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA DAIRY PRODUCTS LTD VS. SECRETARY U P KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-97] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE BHAWANI PAPER MILLS LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-118] [REFERRED TO]
LOKESH DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
ENGINEERING PROFESIONAL CO. PVT LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1) [LAWS(GJH)-2020-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-72] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. -
(1.)In these petitions, orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the Letter Patent Appeals affirming the order passed by the learned single Judge are under challenge. The petitioner filed writ petitions claiming them to have been filed in the public interest questioning the validity, legality and propriety of selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) and appointments made pursuant to the selection by the State Government to the post of District Food and Supplies Controller relating to respondent No. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000.
(2.)The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions mainly on two grounds- (1) the petitioner not being one of the contestants for the post of District Food and Supplies Controller and that the writ petition had been filed only to gain political advantage as he was Member of Legislative Assembly in 1967, hence he had no locus standi to file the writ petition; (2) the selected candidates were appointed to the post of District Food and Supplies Controller in the year 1981 i.e. nearly 16 years prior to filing of the writ petitions. There was no stay of appointment of the selected candidates and they have been continuing in service and further they had earned two promotions in 1985 and 1989. If the petitioner was really aggrieved, he should have made representation to the Department that the selected candidates i.e. the respondents were not qualified for the post.
(3.)On appeal, the Division Bench although did not find any justification to condone the delay of 386 days, yet considered the appeals on merits. The Division Bench noticed that out of the 16 candidates, who were called for interview, the HPSC selected respondent No. 4 Achint Ram Godara, the petitioner himself was not one of the candidates for the post and none of the candidates who had not been selected, challenged his appointment; that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No. 4 had earned two promotions in the year 1985 and 1989 and even the review application filed by the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge was also dismissed on 8-8-1997; respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000 were similarly placed; the Division Bench did not find any good ground to differ with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge and concurring with the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge, Letter Patent Appeals also were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in these petitions.
(2.)The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions mainly on two grounds- (1) the petitioner not being one of the contestants for the post of District Food and Supplies Controller and that the writ petition had been filed only to gain political advantage as he was Member of Legislative Assembly in 1967, hence he had no locus standi to file the writ petition; (2) the selected candidates were appointed to the post of District Food and Supplies Controller in the year 1981 i.e. nearly 16 years prior to filing of the writ petitions. There was no stay of appointment of the selected candidates and they have been continuing in service and further they had earned two promotions in 1985 and 1989. If the petitioner was really aggrieved, he should have made representation to the Department that the selected candidates i.e. the respondents were not qualified for the post.
(3.)On appeal, the Division Bench although did not find any justification to condone the delay of 386 days, yet considered the appeals on merits. The Division Bench noticed that out of the 16 candidates, who were called for interview, the HPSC selected respondent No. 4 Achint Ram Godara, the petitioner himself was not one of the candidates for the post and none of the candidates who had not been selected, challenged his appointment; that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No. 4 had earned two promotions in the year 1985 and 1989 and even the review application filed by the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge was also dismissed on 8-8-1997; respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000 were similarly placed; the Division Bench did not find any good ground to differ with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge and concurring with the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge, Letter Patent Appeals also were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in these petitions.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.