U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ORS. A  v.  

DURGA PRASAD SINGH AND ORS.  

JANUARY 9; 1!195  

(K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]  B  

Service Law'-(J.P. Jal Nigam Sen,ice of Engineers (Public Health  Branch) Regulations, 1977-:Recmitment by selection from amongst eligible  candidates on the basis of the record and interview-Constitution of Commit- C  tee as per orders of High Court-Held, valid-Committee to consider the cases  according to Rules and Regulations-Directions issued.  

FolloWing the direction of the Single Judge dated January, 14, 1993,  

the appellant constituted a Selection Committee and called the persons for  

interview for selection. The applicants contended that calling the persons D  for interview was not warranted either hy Rule 16 of U.P. Jal Nigam Service  

ofEoi:ineers (Public Health Branch) Regolations, 1977 or the Order of the  Single Judge.  

Disposing of the application, this Court E  

HELD: 1. Rule 16 of the U.P.Jal Nlgam Service of Engineers (Pnbllc  

Health Branch) Regolations, 1977 and Option No.4 in the order of the  

Single Judge as upheld by this Court contemplated constitution of a  

Committee. Necessarily a Committee has to be constituted and the Com- F  mittee as contemplated nnder Rule 16 has been chosen to be the forum to  consider the record of the ellgible candidates besides being called for  interview to adjndge their merit. [120-G-H]  

2. There is no inconsistency between the action taken by the Nigam  in implementing the order of this Court and the order of the Single Judge. G  It is howiver made clear that any of the contentions raised by the respon- dent/applicant seeking clarification of the order would not be an impedi- ment for the Committee, while considering their cases for selection fairly  

and objectively Without any prejudice. The Committee will do well to  consider their cases according to Rules and Regulations. [121-A-B] H  

119

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 2 of 1995.  

In  

Civil Appeal No. 9214 of 1994.  

B From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.94 of the Allahabad High  

c  

Court in W.P. No. 72(SB) of 1994.  

Rajiv Dhawan, Ms. Nalini Tripathi, I.M. Buddissi and R.B. Misra for  the Appellants.  

P .P. Rao and Pramod Swarup for the Respondent.  

The following Order of the Court was delivered :  

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order of the  D learned Single Judge dated January 14, 1993 made in' Writ Petition No.  

8504 of 1987 with regard to the fourth option mentioned therein is clear  ·which we have already extracted while allowing the appeal at page 20 of  the paper' book. Sri. P .P. Rao, learned Senior ciiunsel appearing for the  applicant contends that while follwing the directions of the learned Single  Judge, the Jal Nigam had constituted a Selection Committee and called the  

E persons for interview which is not warranted under the order. He1 states  that Rule 16 of U .P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Pllblic Health  Branch) Regulations, 1977 provides that in the case of recruitment by  selection on the basis of interview alone, the candidates eligible for recruit- ment under these regulations are to a~pear before the Selection Committee  

F of the Nigam and on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection  Committee, the Nigam shall draw up a list of candidates selected in order  of merit. The respondents need only t? look into the record and not the  basis of the interview. Rule 16 would not apply. The Nigam would, there- fore, not be justify 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  

G made in the light of option No. 4 which is now sought to be implemented  as per orders of the learned Single Judge as upheld by this Court, neces- sarily a ·committee has to be constituted and the Committee as con- templated under Rule 16 has been chosen to be the forum to consider the  record of the eligible candidates besides being called for interview to  

H adjudge their merit.

U.P.JALNIGAMv. D.P.SINGH 121  

Under these circumstances there is no inconsistency between the A  action taken 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 b~ the r~spondeiitfapplicant seeking clarification of  the order would not be an impediment for the Committee, while .consider- ing their cases for selection fairly and objectively without any prejudice. B  We hope and trust that the Committee will do well to consider their cases  according to Rules & Regulations. I.A is disposed of accordingly.  

A.G. Petition disposed of.