Case Note & Summary
The appellant, who had been appointed as Director General of Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) by direct recruitment, challenged the terms of his appointment letter which stated an initial tenure of five years, whereas the original proposal had indicated appointment until superannuation. He also assailed a subsequent advertisement for the same post and his eventual relieving, as well as the appointment of respondent No.5. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions primarily on the ground of delay and laches. Aggrieved, the appellant filed writ appeals. The factual background involves the CPRI, an autonomous society, and the amendment of recruitment rules for the Director General post. The appellant was selected by a Search-cum-Selection Committee, but the approval from the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet inserted a tenure condition. The appellant made multiple representations seeking rectification. When a fresh advertisement was issued, he filed the first writ petition. Pending hearing, he was relieved and later respondent No.5 was appointed, leading to the second writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed both, and the appeals were filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The bench heard the appellant in person and the Assistant Solicitor General, and reserved judgment. The judgment text provided does not include the court's analysis or final decision on the appeals.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions on ground of delay and laches; whether the appellant's appointment as Director General was rightly treated as a tenure appointment; and whether the subsequent advertisement and appointment of respondent No.5 were valid.
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (04) 1
Writ Appeal Nos.1555-1556 of 2018 (S-RES)
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad
Appellant: Sri N. Murugesan, Party-in-Person; Respondents: Sri Shashikantha C., ASG for R1-R4; Sri S.R. Dodawad for R5
Union of India, Ministry of Power, Department of Personnel & Training, Cabinet Secretariat, Central Power Research Institute Governing Council, and Sri V.S. Nandakumar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service matter concerning appointment terms of Director General of CPRI and subsequent appointment of another person.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of appointment letter terms, advertisement for the post, and appointment of respondent No.5; and sought declaration for continuance until superannuation.
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed that his direct recruitment appointment was wrongly made as a tenure appointment of five years, and that a fresh advertisement was issued maliciously while he was still in service.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge dismissed writ petitions on ground of delay and laches; hence these appeals.
Issues
Whether the appellant's appointment by direct recruitment was a tenure appointment for five years or until superannuation as per the rules.
Whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Whether the advertisement and subsequent appointment of respondent No.5 were valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant contended that the advertisement under which he was appointed did not prescribe a tenure post, and his appointment was by direct recruitment to last until superannuation.
Appellant argued that the variation between the proposal and the appointment letter was a mistake, and he made representations to rectify it.
Appellant submitted that the issuance of a fresh advertisement and his relieving were illegal and malafide.
Appellant contended that the writ petitions should not have been dismissed on ground of delay as he was pursuing representations.
Judgment Excerpts
These intra-court appeals are preferred by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9941 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.50774 of 2016, being aggrieved by order dated 14th March, 2018 by which the writ petitions were dismissed.
The first writ petition was dismissed inter alia, on the ground of delay and laches and consequently the second writ petition was rejected as not surviving for consideration.
Appellant contended that his appointment by way of direct recruitment was 'not a tenure appointment', but appointment to last until his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation.
Procedural History
Appellant filed Writ Petition No.9941 of 2015 challenging appointment letter, advertisement, and relieving order; and later filed Writ Petition No.50774 of 2016 challenging appointment of respondent No.5. Single Judge dismissed both on 14th March 2018 on ground of delay and laches. Appellant filed intra-court appeals under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act. Appeals heard on 22nd April 2019 and judgment pronounced on 26th April 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
- Societies Registration Act, 1960:
