http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.M. SHARMA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/04/1993

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:  1993 AIR 2273            1993 SCR  (3) 280  1993 SCC  Supl.  (3) 252 JT 1993 (3)   740  1993 SCALE  (2)583

ACT: Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961: Section 3(17) (ii) read with Rule 4(2) of the Punjab Agricultural  Produce Market  (General)  Rules. 1961 and Rule 13  of  the  Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974-Chief Administrator’s order dated 6.1.1992 withdrawing the current duty charge of the Executive Engineer-Legality of Constitution  of  India, 1950:  Article  226-Writ  by     an employee, entrusted the current duty charge of the Executive Engineer,  challenging order withdrawing such  charge  under Rule   4(2)  of  the  Punjab  Agricultural  Produce   Market (General)  Rules.  1961  and Rule 13 of  the  Haryana  State Agricultural   Marketing   Board   service   Rules.    1974- justification of.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent  No.1  was Sub- Divisional  Officer  in  the service  of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing  Board. He was entrusted with the current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer by the order dated.  June l3, 1991 of the Chief  Administrator and later on by order dated January  6, 1992   withdrawing  the  current  duty,  charge   from   the respondent No.1, he was transferred. The  respondent  No.1 challenged the order before  the  High Court  in  a  writ petition.  The High  Court  quashing  the Board’s  order allowed the writ petition, against which  the Board riled the present appeal b% special leave. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD  :  1.1  The (order dated January 6, 1992  is  only,  a posting order in respect of two officers.  With the  posting of one Ram Niwas as Executive Engineer, the respondent  No.1 was automatically re-                             280 281 lieved  of the current duty charge of the post of  Executive Engineer.     The     respondent    No.1     was     neither appointed/promoted/posted  as Executive Engineer nor was  he ever  reverted  from  the said post.  He  was  only  holding current  duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer,  and as such the question of his reversion from the said post did not arise. (285-C-D)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

1.02The  High Court fell into patent error In  reading  the order  dated  June  13.1991  as  the  order  promoting   the respondent No.1  to the post of Executive Engineer. (284-G) 2.The    High   Court   extended   its    extra-ordinary. jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India to a frivolity.  No one has a right to ask for or stick to a current  duty charge.  The impugned order did not cause  any financial loss or prejudice of an-$’ kind to respondent  No. 1.  He had no cause or action whatsoever to invoke the  writ Jurisdiction  of the High Court.  It was a patent misuse  of the process (if the Court. (285-G)

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1952  of 1993. From  the Judgment and order dated 20.8.1992 of  the  Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 482 of’ 1992. G.L.Sanghi,  M.R. Sharma, K.B. Rohtagi.  Ms.  Aprna  Rohtagi and M.K. puri for the Appellant. V.  C.  Mahajan.   V.  K.  Sharma  and  P.N.  Puri  for  the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: KULDIP SINGH Special leave granted. S.M.  Sharma  is employed as Sub Divisional Officer  in  the Service  of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing,  Board (the  Board).  The chief Administrator of the Board  by  the order dated June 13. 1991 entrusted sharma with the  current duty charge of the post of 282 Executive Engineer.  Later on by the order dated January  6, 1992 the Chief Administrator withdraw the Said Current  duty charge  from Sharma and transferred him to Bhiwani.   Sharma challenged tile order before the High Court by way of a writ petition  under Article 226 of’ the Constitution  of  India. The High Court by its judgment dated August 20. 1992 allowed the  writ  petition  and quashed  the  order  dated  January 6.1992.  This appeal by the State of Haryana is against  the judgment of the High Court. The  Constitution  and  the  functioning  of  the  Board  is governed  by  the Punjab Agricultural Produce  Markets  Act. 1961C the Act) as applicable it) the State of Haryana and by the Rules framed thereunder.  Section 3( 17)(ii) of tile Act empowers  the  Board to delegate any of its  powers  to  its Chairman.   Chief  Administrator.  Secretary or any  of  its officers.   The Punjab Agricultural Produce Market  (General Rules.  1961  (the  General Rules)  and  the  Haryana  State Agricultural  Marketing  Board  Services  Rules.  1974  (the Service Rules) have been framed under the Act.  Rule 4(2) of the  General Rules which lays down the functions and  powers of the Chief Administrator is as under:               "4(2) The Chief Administrator shall.               (a)   be responsible for the administration of               the  Act  and  shall  subject  to  any   other               provision  contained in these rules,  exercise               general  control  over the  employees  of  the               Board and those of Committees:               (b)enjoy  the  powers  of  the  Head  of   the               Department   as  are  being  enjoyed  by   the               Director of Agriculture               Department;               (c)   be the competent authority for approving               the budget of the Committees and               (d)   he  responsible for the  preparation  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             the annual budget of the Board."               Rule of the Service Rules which is relevant is               reproduced hereunder:               293                " 13. A member of the Service shall be liable               to  serve  in  any place,  whether  within  or               without the state of Haryana, on being ordered               so to do by the Chief Administrator." Section 20 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the General  Rules gives  the  power of appointment to the  post  of  Executive Engineer to the Board.  It is not disputed that the board by its resolution dated November 18, 1986 delegated its powers. to  appoint  Class  A  Officers,  including  the   Executive Engineers,  and  to inflict major punishment in  respect  of such  officers,  to the Chief Administrator  of  the  Board. Thereafter  the Board by its resolution dated  December  26, 1991  superseded the earlier resolution dated  November  18, 1986 and further resolved to delegate the said powers to its Chairman.  The appellant, State Government,claims that there solution dated December 26, 1991, having been passed in  the absence  of the Chief Administrator, was not valid.   We  do not wish to go into the question of the validity of the said resolution.  The High Court proceeded on the assumption  that the resolution dated December  26,1991  was valid  and as such the Chief Administrator was left with  no power to appoint a person to the post of Executive  Engineer and to remove him therefrom. On  the  above facts the High Court  reached  the  following findings: (i.)Under  the  Act and the Service Rules it is  the  Board which  is  competent to make an appointment to the  post  of Executive Engineer. ii.)The  delegation  of  powers  in  favour  of  the   Chief Administrator  was withdrawn by the Board by its  resolution dated  December  26, 1991 and instead the said  powers  were delegated to the Chairman.  It was, thus, only the  Chairman who could appoint a person to the post of Executive Engineer and also to remove him therefrom. iii)After the above said resolution dated December  26.1991 the Chief Administrator was no longer competent to  exercise the  powers  with  regard to appointment,  removal  etc.  in respect of the post of Executive Engineer. 284 On  the above quoted findings the High Court concluded  that the  order of the Chief Administrator dated January 6.  1992 withdrawing the current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer   from   Sharma  was  illegal.   The   High   Court thus,.allowed the writ petition and quashed the said order. We  do not agree with the High Court.  Even if the  findings reached by the High Court are taken to he correct, there  is no   justification   to  quash  the  order  of   the   Chief Administrator dated.January 6, 1992. Sharma was given the current duty charge by the order  dated June 13, 1991 which is reproduced hereunder:                        "OFFICE ODER.               Sh. Surinder Mohan Sharma, SDO.  HSAM,  Board,               Naraingarh is entrusted current duties  charge               of the post of Executive Engineer, Kaithal  in               his own pay ,scale till further order,               These order shall take immediate effect.                 Sd/-                 Raj Kumar                 Chief Administrator" Sharma  was no( promoted to the post of Executive  Engineer, he  was only entrusted with the current duty-charge  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

said  post in his own pay scale till further orders.   There is  no  order  promoting Sharma to  the  post  of  Executive Engineer.  The High Court fell into patent error in  reading the order dated June 13, 1991 as the order promoting  Sharma to  the post of Executive Engineer.  We may also notice  the impugned order dated January 6. 1992 which is as under:-                        "OFFICE ORDER               Sh.  Ram Niwas, XEN, from PWD(B&R)  is  hereby               posted  as XEN, in HSAM Board in Panchkula  as               XEN, (Design).               285               Sh.  Surinder  Mohan  Sharma,  SDO,  who   was               holding current duty charge of the post of XEN               in  his  own pay scale is  hereby  transferred               from Panchkula and posted as SDO in Bhiwani,                 These orders shall take immediate effect.                Manik Sonawane,                Chief Adiministrator." It is only a posting order in respect of two officers.  With the  posting of Ram Niwas as Executive Engineer  Sharma  was automatically  relieved of the current duty charge  (if  the post   of   Executive   Engineer.    Sharma   was    neither appointed/promoted/posted  as Executive Engineer nor was  he ever  reverted  from  the said post.  He  was  only  holding current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer.   The Chief  Administrator  never promoted Sharma to the  post  of Executive Engineer and as such the question of his reversion from  the said post did not arise.  Under the  circumstances the   controversy  whether  the  powers  of  the  Board   to appoint/promote  a  person  to  the  post  of  an  Executive Engineer  were  delegated to the chairman or  to  the  chief Administrator. is wholly irrelevant. Sharma  was  given the current duty charge of  the  post  of Executive   Engineer   under  the  orders   of   the   Chief Administrator and the said charge was also withdrawn by  the same authority.  We have already reproduced above Rule  4(2) of  the General Rules and Rule 13 of the Service Rules.   We are  of the view that the Chief Administrator, in the  facts and  circumstances  of this case. was within his  powers  to issue  the  two orders dated June 13. 1991  and  January  6, 1992. We are constrained to say that the High Court   extended its extraordinary   jurisdiction  under  Article  2216  of   the Constitution of India to a frivolity.  No one has a right to ask  for  or stick to a current duty  charge.  The  impugned order  did not cause any financial loss or prejudice of  any kind  to  Sharma.  He had no cause of action  whatsoever  to invoke  the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.  It  was  a patient misuse of the process of the Court. We.  therefore   allow  the appeal set  aside  the  impugned judgment 286 of the High court dated August 20, 1992 and dismiss the writ petition  filed by sharma before the High court with  costs. We quantify the costs as Rs. 10,000/- V. P. R.                          Appeal allowed. 287