JUDGMENT
S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Through this review petition filed on 5.10.2005 review of judgment dated 31.3.1999 has been sought. The review petition is accompanied by delay condonation application. The ground taken in the said application is that the petitioner was not aware of the decision of writ petition and even after dismissal of the writ petition he had filed the supplementary-affidavit through another counsel under the assumption that the writ petition was pending. The writ petition was decided after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. In the counter-affidavit to the review application it has been stated that the other learned Counsel engaged by the petitioner, i.e., Sri D.P. Singh did not appear when the matter was earlier heard and decided even though his name was also printed in the cause list.
4. The facts of the case are that 11 persons, including the petitioner, were appointed through letter dated 28.4.1980 on temporary basis on the post of Clerk/Cashier from the date of their joining by respondent No. 2 Agra Zila Sahkari Bank Limited. Before any one could join through another letter dated 21.5.1980, the appointment letter dated 28.4.1980 was cancelled. All the 11 persons concerned challenged the said order through writ petition in which initially stay order was granted on 23.5.1980. However, later on writ petition was dismissed on 15.12.1980 on the ground of alternative remedy available under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, thereafter the concerned persons approached the State Government for making reference to the labour court. The State Government made the references and labour court decided the matter. In view of the interim order petitioner and other persons were permitted to join. However, after dismissal of the earlier writ petition on 15.12.1980 services were terminated. In the case of the petitioner the matter was registered before the labour court in the form of Adjudication Case No. 142 of 1982. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra through award dated 24.1.1986 held that the selection committee, which selected the petitioner, was not constituted in accordance with the relevant rules, hence appointment was illegal. Ultimately, labour court held the cancellation of appointment order to be valid. The said award of the labour court was challenged through the writ petition giving rise to the present review petition. This Court held that Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies was necessary member of Selection Committee and as he did not participate in the deliberations of the Selection Committee, hence appointment was illegal. Same view had been taken by the labour court. The writ petition was therefore dismissed on 31.3.1999. The said judgment is sought to be reviewed through this review petition.
5. It appears that the labour court in the case of some other similarly situated persons (who were included in the list of 11 persons appointed through letter dated 28.4.1980 and who had also raised the industrial dispute) decided the matter in favour of the workmen-employees and held that they were selected by duly appointed Selection Committee. Against one such award respondent No. 2, Agra Zila Sahkari Bank Limited filed Writ Petition No. 2271 of 1997. The said writ petition was dismissed on 10.3.1998. Copy of the said judgment has been supplied by the learned Counsel for the applicant. Against the said judgment respondent No. 2 filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court, which was later on converted into Civil Appeal No. 3466 of 1998 and was dismissed on 27.2.2001. Copy of the said judgment has also been supplied.
6. In respect of non-participation of Assistant Registrar in the selection process the High Court as well as the Supreme Court held that by virtue of Government order issued on 27.7.1979. Assistant Registrar was entitled to nominate a person to participate in the Selection Committee on his behalf and as in the Selection Committee in question a nominee of Assistant Registrar had participated, hence there was no deficiency in the Selection Committee.
7. Accordingly the main basis of the judgment sought to be reviewed through this review petition is not legally correct. Unfortunately the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2271 of 1997 even though delivered about a year before (i.e., on 10.3.1998) was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Judge who dismissed this writ petition on 31.3.1999. The said judgment of the High Court has been approved by the Supreme Court.
8. However, the matter does not end completely here.
9. It has been mentioned in the award that the petitioner was brother-in-law of the then Secretary of the Bank, i.e., Sri Girraj Singh. The Secretary is ex qfficio member of the Selection Committee consisting of Chairman, Assistant Registrar or his nominee and the Secretary. Petitioner’s brother-in-law, Girraj Singh, was the member of the Selection Committee, which selected the 11 persons including the petitioner. Appointment letter was also issued by the Secretary Sri Girraj Singh, the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The appointment of petitioner was, therefore, illegal only and only on this ground.
10. The above being additional ground for the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner, writ petition cannot be allowed and order setting aside the appointment of the petitioner cannot be quashed on the ground that absence of Assistant Registrar did not invalidate the Selection Committee. In this regard reference may be made to the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India . In the said case also close relation of a selected candidate was one of the members of the Selection Committee. Even though it was found that he did not participate in the deliberations of the Selection Committee when the case of the concerned appointee was considered, still the Supreme Court held that mere presence of a relation in the Selection Committee was sufficient to vitiate the selection process in the case of the related appointee.
11. Accordingly I do not find any error in the impugned award.
12. Accordingly review petition is allowed. Order dated 31.3.1999, dismissing the writ petition is set aside for the reason that the point is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3466 of 1998 Agra District Cooperative Bank Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra dated 27.2.2001 : 2001 (2) AWC1433 (SC). However, writ petition is again dismissed on the ground that selection of petitioner was illegal as petitioner’s brother-in-law was one of the three members of the Selection Committee.