Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 767 of 1986, which had reversed the order of a learned Single Judge. The dispute related to the termination of an agency under the National Savings Scheme known as the Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana. The respondent was appointed as an agent under that scheme by order dated 7 August 1976. The Union of India terminated the agency by order dated 2 August 1994 on the ground that the respondent's brother was employed in the post office, rendering the agency invalid under the relevant Government instructions and the circular dated 5 January 1981. The respondent challenged the termination and the circular before the Kerala High Court by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge found that the circular was neither discriminatory nor arbitrary and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ appeal. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, taking the view that mere existence of near relations in the division was not enough for terminating the agency. The Union of India then preferred a special leave petition before the Supreme Court; delay was condoned and leave was granted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the mere existence of near relations working in the same post office or division was a sufficient ground to terminate an agency under the National Savings Scheme, in light of the Government's policy and the circular dated 5 January 1981. The Union of India contended that the policy clearly prohibited the appointment of near relations, including legitimate or step-children, father or step-father, mother or step-mother, husband, brother or step-brother, sister or step-sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law and daughter-in-law, as agents at the place of work of the post-master. The respondent's long service since 1976 and the absence of a specific finding of breach weighed in favour of not disturbing the appointment. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the Division Bench was legally incorrect because the Government policy and instructions clearly directed that no near relations, as defined under the scheme, should be appointed as agents at the workplace of the post-master. However, the Court noted that the respondent had been working continuously since 1976 and that the authority had not recorded any clear finding establishing a breach of the instructions. In view of those peculiar facts, the Court decided not to disturb the respondent's appointment. The Court observed that it was open to the appellants to transfer the post-master to any other place. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. Thus, while the Supreme Court disapproved the Division Bench's reasoning on the legal principle, it declined to grant the relief of termination on the peculiar facts of the case, thereby allowing the respondent's appointment to continue.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Termination of Agency - Prohibition on Appointing Near Relatives - Government Policy under Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana and Circular dated 05.01.1981 - The Supreme Court disapproved the Division Bench's view that mere existence of near relations in the division is insufficient to terminate agency, holding that clear Government policy forbids appointment of listed near relatives as agents at the post-master's workplace. (Paras not mentioned) B) Judicial Review - Discretionary Relief - Non-Interference on Peculiar Facts - No specific Act - Since the respondent had worked as agent from 1976 and no clear finding of breach of instructions had been recorded, the Supreme Court declined to disturb the appointment, though it permitted transfer of the post-master. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether mere existence of near relations working in the same post office/division is sufficient ground for terminating the agency under the Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana and the circular dated 5.1.1981.
Final Decision
Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with no costs. It held that the Division Bench's view was incorrect, but due to peculiar facts (long service since 1976 and absence of clear finding of breach) declined to disturb the respondent's appointment; appellants may transfer the post-master to any other place.
Law Points
- Government policy prohibits appointment of near relatives as agents under Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana
- mere existence of near relation is a valid ground for termination if breach established
- long uninterrupted service and lack of clear finding of breach may justify non-interference.
