{"id":55143,"date":"2011-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011"},"modified":"2019-04-03T14:43:44","modified_gmt":"2019-04-03T09:13:44","slug":"rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. … on 3 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. … on 3 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                            Non-Reportable \n\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n             CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3448 OF 2008\n\n\nRakesh Sharma & Ors.,                                 ...     Appellants\n\n                             Versus\n\n\nChairman\/Managing Director,\n\nUttaranchal Power Corporation & Ors.,              ... Respondents\n\n\n\n                              WITH\n\n\n             CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3476 OF 2008,\n\n\n                              WITH\n\n\n  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs.5278-5279 of 2009\n\n\n                               AND\n\n\n      SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.4827 of 2009\n\n\n\n\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
A. K. PATNAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n
IN CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 3448 OF 2008 AND 3476 OF 2008<\/p>\n
     These   two   appeals   are   against   two   separate   orders <\/p>\n
passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of <\/p>\n
Uttaranchal on 28.02.2006 and arise out of the same set of <\/p>\n
facts and are accordingly being disposed of by this common <\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
2.    The   facts   very   briefly   are   that   written   tests   and <\/p>\n
      interviews   were   conducted   in   the   years   1977,   1979 <\/p>\n
      and   1981   for   promotion   of   Operating   Staff   (Technical <\/p>\n
      Grade-II)   to   the   post   of   Junior   Engineer   in   the   Uttar <\/p>\n
      Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short `the UPSEB’) <\/p>\n
      under   Regulation   17   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   State <\/p>\n
      Electricity         Board         Subordinate         Electrical         and <\/p>\n
      Mechanical Engineering Service Regulations, 1972 (for <\/p>\n
      short   `the   Regulations’).     Mandip   Singh   and   others, <\/p>\n
      who had taken the written test and interview in 1977, <\/p>\n
      moved   the   Allahabad   High   Court   in   a   batch   of   Writ <\/p>\n
      Petitions   and   on   28.08.1989   a   Division   Bench   of   the <\/p>\n
      High Court by its order directed the UPSEB to declare <\/p>\n
      the select list of candidates who had appeared in 1977 <\/p>\n
      examination   and   the   interview   and   after   exhausting <\/p>\n
      the same to make appointments from the select list of <\/p>\n
      the candidates who had appeared in the 1979 written <\/p>\n
      examination   and   interview.     On   24.09.1999,   the <\/p>\n
      UPSEB   issued   an   Office   Memo   cancelling   the <\/p>\n
      examination   conducted   in   1985   because   it   was   not <\/p>\n
      possible to promote  the Technical Cadre employees to <\/p>\n
                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
the   post   of   Junior   Engineer   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
examination conducted in the year 1985 till the order <\/p>\n
dated   29.08.1989   of   the   Allahabad   High   Court   in   the <\/p>\n
case of Mandip Singh & others was complied with.  On <\/p>\n
09.11.2000,   the   new   State   of   Uttaranchal,   now <\/p>\n
renamed   as   Uttarakhand,   was   carved   out   of   the <\/p>\n
erstwhile   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   and   the   Uttaranchal <\/p>\n
Power   Corporation   Limited   (for   short   `the   UPCL’) <\/p>\n
became   the   successor   of   UPSEB   for   the   State   of <\/p>\n
Uttarakhand   and   started   functioning   with   effect   from <\/p>\n
01.04.2001   and   adopted   the   Regulations   for   its <\/p>\n
employees.     On   05.04.2003,   the   Selection   Committee <\/p>\n
of UPCL recommended that there was no hindrance for <\/p>\n
promoting the candidates selected on the basis of 1985 <\/p>\n
examination   as   there   were   vacancies   to   the   post   of <\/p>\n
Junior   Engineer   after   promotion   of   the   selected <\/p>\n
candidates of the years 1977 and 1979.   Thereafter, a <\/p>\n
list   of   employees,   who   had   taken   the   examinations <\/p>\n
conducted by the UPSEB in the years 1977, 1979 and <\/p>\n
1985,   was   prepared   and   they   were   promoted   to   the <\/p>\n
post   of   Junior   Engineer   by   the   Board   of   UPCL   after <\/p>\n
                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
      relaxation under Regulation 31 of the Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
3.    These promotions were challenged in Civil Writ Petition <\/p>\n
      Nos. 3 of 2003 (S\/S), 979 of 2002 (S\/S), 7195 of 2001 <\/p>\n
      (S\/S)   and   803   of   2003   (S\/S)   in   the   High   Court   of <\/p>\n
      Uttaranchal.    The four  Writ  Petitions  were heard  by  a <\/p>\n
      learned  Single Judge and allowed by a common order <\/p>\n
      dated 25.10.2004.  The learned Single Judge held that <\/p>\n
      the promotions of employees of the cadre of Technical <\/p>\n
      Grade-II to the post of Junior Engineer on the basis of <\/p>\n
      1985   examination   cannot   be   said   to   be   legal   after <\/p>\n
      cancellation   of   1985   examination   by   the   Office   Memo <\/p>\n
      dated   24.09.1999   of   the   UPSEB,   unless   either <\/p>\n
      Regulation   17,   which   provides   for   promotion   on   the <\/p>\n
      basis   of   written   examination   and   interview,   was <\/p>\n
      amended   or   the   order   of   cancellation   of   the   1985 <\/p>\n
      examination   was   recalled.     The   learned   Single   Judge <\/p>\n
      directed   the   UPCL   to   hold   examination   afresh <\/p>\n
      complying   with   the   provisions   of  Regulation   17   of  the <\/p>\n
      Regulations.     The   learned   Single   Judge   quashed   the <\/p>\n
      seniority   list   of   Junior   Engineers   dated   17.11.2001 <\/p>\n
      which was based  on the promotions held on the basis <\/p>\n
                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
      of   1985   examination   and   further   observed   that   the <\/p>\n
      promotions   made   on   the   basis   of   the   examinations <\/p>\n
      held   in   the   years   1977   and   1979   shall   remain <\/p>\n
      unaffected.     The   learned   Single   Judge,   however, <\/p>\n
      observed   that   those   already   promoted   or   holding   the <\/p>\n
      charge   of   Junior   Engineers   will   not   be   disturbed   and <\/p>\n
      their   functioning   shall   be   subject   to   the   result   of   the <\/p>\n
      fresh examination to be held.\n<\/p>\n
4.      Rakesh  Sharma and others,  who had been  promoted <\/p>\n
      as   Junior   Engineers   on   the   basis   of   the   1985 <\/p>\n
      examination, challenged the order of the learned Single <\/p>\n
      Judge   before   the   Division   Bench   of  the   High   Court   of <\/p>\n
      Uttaranchal in Special Appeal Nos. 96 of 2004 and 103 <\/p>\n
      of   2004   but   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
      dismissed   the   Special   Appeals   by   order   dated <\/p>\n
      28.02.2006.     The   Division   Bench   agreed   with   the <\/p>\n
      reasons   given   by   the   learned   Single   Judge,   but <\/p>\n
      observed   that   promotees   on   the   basis   of   the   1985 <\/p>\n
      examination   shall   be   treated   as   working   on  ad   hoc <\/p>\n
      promotion and shall be allowed to continue subject to <\/p>\n
      their   appearance   and passing  in  the  examination  and <\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
      the  interview  in  accordance   with   Regulation  17  of  the <\/p>\n
      Regulations and those selected afresh will be treated to <\/p>\n
      have been appointed from the date of promotion.   The <\/p>\n
      UPCL also filed Special Appeal Nos.105, 107, 112 and <\/p>\n
      113   of   2008   against   the   order   dated   28.02.2006   and <\/p>\n
      by   a   separate   order   dated   28.02.2006   the   Division <\/p>\n
      Bench of the High Court sustained the order of learned <\/p>\n
      Single Judge and disposed of the Special Appeals with <\/p>\n
      the   direction   that   those   promotees,   who   had   retired, <\/p>\n
      shall not be affected by the order of the learned Single <\/p>\n
      Judge.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Mr.   P.   P.   Rao,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   in <\/p>\n
      Civil   Appeal   No.3476   of   2008,   and   Mr.   D.   K.   Garg, <\/p>\n
      leaned   counsel   for   the   appellants   in   Civil   Appeal <\/p>\n
      No.3448   of   2008,   submitted   that   the   selection   of <\/p>\n
      candidates   for   promotion   to   the   post   of   Junior <\/p>\n
      Engineer   made   on   the   basis   of   written   examination <\/p>\n
      and   interview   held   in   1985   was   in   accordance   with <\/p>\n
      Regulation   17   of   the   Regulations   and   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
      has not found the selection of candidates to be illegal.\n<\/p>\n
      They  submitted that  the  selection of candidates  made <\/p>\n
                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
in   the   year   1985   was   cancelled   by   the   Office   Order <\/p>\n
dated   24.09.1999   of   the   UPSEB   because   if   the <\/p>\n
directions of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High <\/p>\n
Court in the case of  Mandip Singh & Ors.  v.  UPSEB &  <\/p>\n
Ors.  to   first   appoint   the   candidates   selected   on   the <\/p>\n
basis of examinations and interviews held in 1977 and <\/p>\n
1979, had to be complied with, the candidates selected <\/p>\n
on the basis of the examination  and interview held  in <\/p>\n
1985 could not be appointed.  Learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
appellants further  submitted  that the High  Court was <\/p>\n
under   an   erroneous   impression   that   the   Office   Order <\/p>\n
dated   24.09.1999   cancelling   the   examination   of   1985 <\/p>\n
had not been recalled.  They referred to the minutes of <\/p>\n
the   14th  Board   of   Directors’   Meeting   of   UPCL   held   on <\/p>\n
26.12.2003 and 24.01.2004 to show that the Board of <\/p>\n
UPCL   had   resolved   that   the   employees   who   have <\/p>\n
qualified   in   the   1985   examination   and   had   been <\/p>\n
absorbed in the services of the UPCL would be eligible <\/p>\n
to   be   promoted   to   the   post   of   Junior   Engineer.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the <\/p>\n
Board   of   UPCL,   therefore,   had   in   effect   recalled   the <\/p>\n
                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
      cancellation of the 1985 examination for promotion to <\/p>\n
      the   post   of   Junior   Engineer   and,   therefore,   the <\/p>\n
      candidates, who have been selected on the basis of the <\/p>\n
      1985 examination were promoted to the post of Junior <\/p>\n
      Engineer   in   accordance   with   Regulation   17   of   the <\/p>\n
      Regulations   and   their   appointments   could   not   have <\/p>\n
      been declared to be invalid by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Mr.   B.   Datta,   learned   counsel   for   the   private <\/p>\n
      respondents   in   both   the   appeals,   on   the   other   hand, <\/p>\n
      submitted that the Board of the UPCL has committed a <\/p>\n
      breach of the directions of the judgment of the Division <\/p>\n
      Bench   of   the   Allahabad   High   Court   in   the   case   of <\/p>\n
      Mandip Singh & Ors. v. UPSEB & Ors. and has resolved <\/p>\n
      in its meetings held on 26.12.2003 and 02.01.2004 to <\/p>\n
      promote   the   employees   who   had   qualified   in   1985 <\/p>\n
      examination.     He   submitted   that   the   UPCL   should <\/p>\n
      have   held   another   written   examination   and   interview <\/p>\n
      in   accordance   with   Regulation   17   of   the   Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
      He   also   submitted   that   the   private   respondents   were <\/p>\n
      not   promoted   even   though   they   qualified   in   the   oral <\/p>\n
      tests   and   instead   their   juniors   in   the   cadre   of <\/p>\n
                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
      Technical   Grade-II   were   promoted   on   the   basis   of   the <\/p>\n
      1985   examination,   which   have   been   held   to   be   illegal <\/p>\n
      by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.    We   have   considered   the   submissions   of   the   learned <\/p>\n
      counsel for the parties and we find that in the batch of <\/p>\n
      Writ   Petitions   in   the   case   of  Mandip   Singh   &   Ors.  v.\n<\/p>\n
      UPSEB   &   Ors.,  the   Division   Bench   of   the   Allahabad <\/p>\n
      High   Court   in   its   judgment   dated   29.08.1989   did   not <\/p>\n
      hold   that   the   selection   of   candidates   made   for <\/p>\n
      promotion   on   the   basis   of   1985   examination   was   in <\/p>\n
      contravention   of   Regulation   17   of   the   Regulations   or <\/p>\n
      was   in   any   way   illegal.     The   High   Court   only <\/p>\n
      considered  the   grievances   of   the   candidates,   who   had <\/p>\n
      appeared   in   the   1977   and   1979   examinations   and <\/p>\n
      issued writs of mandamus granting some reliefs.  Para <\/p>\n
      14   of   the   judgment   of   the   Division   Bench   in  Mandip  <\/p>\n
      Singh & Ors. v. UPSEB & Ors. is quoted hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n
         “In the result, the writ petitions are allowed.\n<\/p>\n
         A   mandamus   is   issued   directly   to   the   U.P.\n<\/p>\n
         State  Electricity  Board  to declare the list  of <\/p>\n
         the         candidates         appeared         in         1977 <\/p>\n
         examination and after exhausting the same <\/p>\n
         to   make   appointments   from   the   list   of   the <\/p>\n
         candidates   appeared   in   1979   examination.\n<\/p>\n
         The months from the date of production of a <\/p>\n
                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
         copy of  this order.   A further  mandamus is <\/p>\n
         issued   directing   the   UP   State   Electricity <\/p>\n
         Board to declare the list of temporary Junior <\/p>\n
         Engineers             and         thereafter          to         make <\/p>\n
         appointments   from   that   list   in   accordance <\/p>\n
         with law.  A mandamus is also issued to the <\/p>\n
         U.P.   State   Electricity   Board   to   reduce   the <\/p>\n
         marks   for   interview   and   oral   test   and   to <\/p>\n
         make   selection   accordingly   and   this   shall <\/p>\n
         also   be   done   within   two   months   from   the <\/p>\n
         date   of   production   of   a   copy   of   this   order.\n<\/p>\n
         The   U.P.   State   Electricity   Board   is   also <\/p>\n
         directed   to   relax   the   qualifications   only   in <\/p>\n
         accordance   with   law   and   taking   into <\/p>\n
         consideration the Regulation 31.”\n<\/p>\n
8.    We   further   find   that   although   in   the   judgment   in <\/p>\n
      Mandip   Singh   &   Ors.  v.  UPSEB   &   Ors.  the   Division <\/p>\n
      Bench of the Allahabad High Court did not declare the <\/p>\n
      selections made on the basis of 1985 examination and <\/p>\n
      interview to be in any way illegal, the UPSEB cancelled <\/p>\n
      the selections by Office Order dated 24.09.1999, which <\/p>\n
      is quoted hereibelow :\n<\/p>\n
              “Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board<\/p>\n
         No.3726(   )-AR-09(Ga)\/Sachiv-99-20 F90G\/88 (TC)<\/p>\n
         Dated September 24, 1999<\/p>\n
                                     Office Order<\/p>\n
         As   per   the   note   dated   17.12.1996   made   by <\/p>\n
         U.P.         State          Power            Corporation               the <\/p>\n
         examinations held in the year 1985 could not <\/p>\n
                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
                be   given   effect.     Unless   the   judgment   and <\/p>\n
                order   dated   29.08.1989   passed   by   Hon’ble <\/p>\n
                High Court of Allahabad (Allahabad Bench) in <\/p>\n
                Writ   Petition   No.   4858\/85   entitled   Mandeep <\/p>\n
                Singh   vs.   UPSEB   is   not   complied   with.\n<\/p>\n
                Besides   this,   100   marks   were   fixed   for   viva <\/p>\n
                voce.  After having kept the recommendations <\/p>\n
                made   by   Power   Service   Commission   on   the <\/p>\n
                aforesaid   point   the   examinations   held   in   the <\/p>\n
                year   1985   for   the   promotion   of   Technical <\/p>\n
                Grade-II   on   the   post   of   Junior   Engineer   are <\/p>\n
                hereby cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        Sd\/- Illegible”\n<\/p>\n
9.                  It   will   be   clear   from   the   Office   Order   dated <\/p>\n
           24.09.1999   that   the   only   reason   given   by   the   UPSEB <\/p>\n
           to   cancel   the   selection   on   the   basis   of   the   1985 <\/p>\n
           examination   for   promotion   of   Technical   Grade-II   staff <\/p>\n
           to the post of  Junior  Engineer is that  if  the judgment <\/p>\n
           of the High Court in the case of Mandip Singh & Ors. v.\n<\/p>\n
           UPSEB   &   Ors.  was   to   be   complied   with,   the   selection <\/p>\n
           made   on   the   basis   of   1985   examination   could   not   be <\/p>\n
           given effect to because there would be no vacancies in <\/p>\n
           the   post   of   Junior   Engineer   in   which   the   selected <\/p>\n
           candidates of 1985 could be accommodated.\n<\/p>\n
10.              We   also   find   from   the   records   that   after   the   new <\/p>\n
           State   of   Uttarakhand   was   formed   and   the   UPCL <\/p>\n
                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
       became   the   successor   of   the   UPSEB   for   the   State   of <\/p>\n
       Uttarakhand,   several   posts   of   Junior   Engineers   were <\/p>\n
       required   to   be   filled   up.     Therefore,   the   Board   of   the <\/p>\n
       UPCL   deliberated   over   the   matter   afresh   in   its <\/p>\n
       Meetings   held   on   26.12.2003   and   02.01.2004   and <\/p>\n
       resolved as follows :\n<\/p>\n
          “As   the   erstwhile   U.P.   State   Electricity   Board <\/p>\n
          did   not   take   cognizance   of   the   examination <\/p>\n
          conducted in 1985 for promotion to the post of <\/p>\n
          Junior   Engineer   from   Operating   Staff   as   per <\/p>\n
          the   Hon’ble   High   Court   of   Allahabad   decision <\/p>\n
          which   stated   that   first   the   list   of   candidates <\/p>\n
          appeared in 1977 examinations be exhausted, <\/p>\n
          and   not   for   any   other   reason,   the   employees <\/p>\n
          qualified   the   1985   Examination   and   absorbed <\/p>\n
          in   the   Corporation   services   would   be   eligible <\/p>\n
          for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer.”\n<\/p>\n
11.        The   facts   discussed   above   clearly   establish   that   the <\/p>\n
       selection   of   candidates   on   the   basis   of   the   1985 <\/p>\n
       examination   and   interview   have   not   been   held   by   the <\/p>\n
       Allahabad High Court to be illegal in the batch of Writ <\/p>\n
       Petitions in the case of  Mandip Singh & Ors.  v.  UPSEB  <\/p>\n
       &   Ors.    and   the   UPSEB   had   also   not   cancelled   the <\/p>\n
       selection   of   candidates   for   promotion   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
       1985 examination on the ground that the selection was <\/p>\n
       in contravention of Regulation 17 of the Regulations or <\/p>\n
                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
was   in   any   other   way   irregular   and   the   only   reason <\/p>\n
given   by   the   UPSEB   in   its   Office   Order   dated <\/p>\n
24.09.1999 for cancelling the selection on the basis of <\/p>\n
1985   examination   was   that   the   selection   cannot   be <\/p>\n
given effect to without complying with the directions of <\/p>\n
the  High  Court   in  the  case   of  Mandip  Singh  &  Ors.  v.\n<\/p>\n
UPSEB & Ors.  If the successor of UPSEB, namely, the <\/p>\n
UPCL,   found   that   a   number   of   posts   of   Junior <\/p>\n
Engineers had to be filled up and this could be done by <\/p>\n
promoting   the   candidates,   who   had   qualified   in   the <\/p>\n
1985 examination and  who had  been absorbed in the <\/p>\n
services   of   the   UPCL   and   resolved   accordingly,   the <\/p>\n
High Court could not have held in the impugned order <\/p>\n
that  the  promotions   of  the   candidates   on the  basis   of <\/p>\n
1985   examination   were   contrary   to   Regulation   17   of <\/p>\n
the   Regulations   or   in   any   way   illegal.     For   these   very <\/p>\n
reasons,   we   also   cannot   accept   the   contention   of   the <\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents that the Board of <\/p>\n
UPCL has committed a breach of the directions in the <\/p>\n
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Mandip Singh  <\/p>\n
& Ors. v. UPSEB & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
                                      14<\/span><\/p>\n
12.      We also do not find any merit in the grievances of the <\/p>\n
       private   respondents   that   they   were   not   promoted   but <\/p>\n
       their juniors in Technical Grade-II have been promoted <\/p>\n
       on the basis of the 1985 examination.  Clauses (2) and <\/p>\n
       (3)   of   Regulation   17   of   the   Regulations     are   quoted <\/p>\n
       hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n
       “(2) The selection shall be based on a written test <\/p>\n
       followed by a practical and oral test to which only <\/p>\n
       such   candidates   would   be   admitted   as   have <\/p>\n
       qualified in the written test.\n<\/p>\n
       (3)   The   names   of   the   candidates   who   qualify   in <\/p>\n
       the practical and oral test shall be placed in a list <\/p>\n
       in their order of merit.   For computing the merit <\/p>\n
       of a candidate the marks obtained by him both in <\/p>\n
       the   written   test   and   the   practical   and   oral   test <\/p>\n
       shall be added.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus,   Clauses   (2)   and   (3)   of   Regulation   17   are   clear   that <\/p>\n
promotion to the post of Junior Engineer from amongst the <\/p>\n
Operating Staff is to be made on the basis of selection based <\/p>\n
on   a   written   examination   followed   by   a   practical   and   oral <\/p>\n
test   to   which   only   such   candidates   would   be   admitted   as <\/p>\n
have   qualified   in   the   written   test   and   the   names   of   the <\/p>\n
candidates   who   qualified   in   the   practical   and   written   tests <\/p>\n
were   to   be   placed   in   the   order   of   merit.     If   the   private <\/p>\n
respondents   could   not   be   promoted   whereas   their   juniors <\/p>\n
                                              15<\/span><\/p>\n
were   promoted   because   of   their   merit   determined   in   the <\/p>\n
tests as provided in Clauses (2) and (3) of Regulation 17, the <\/p>\n
promotion of such juniors cannot be held to be in any way <\/p>\n
illegal.\n<\/p>\n
13.                For   the   aforesaid   reasons,   the   appeals   are   allowed <\/p>\n
             and the judgments of the learned Single Judge in Writ <\/p>\n
             Petition Nos. 3 of 2003 (S\/S), 979 of 2002 (S\/S), 7195 <\/p>\n
             of 2001 (S\/S) and 803 of 2003 (S\/S) and the impugned <\/p>\n
             judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court are <\/p>\n
             set aside.  There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
IN<\/p>\n
       SPECIA
\n                    L LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs.5278-5279 of 2009 <\/p>\n
AND 4827 of 2009<\/p>\n
             These   Special   Leave   Petitions   were   listed   for   hearing <\/p>\n
along with Civil Appeal Nos.3448 of 2008 and 3476 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
2.           At   the   time   of   hearing   of   the   Civil   Appeals,   Mr.   D.   K.\n<\/p>\n
Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the <\/p>\n
Special   Leave   Petitions   be   listed   after   the   disposal   of   the <\/p>\n
Civil Appeals.\n<\/p>\n
3.           We   have   today   disposed   of   Civil   Appeal   Nos.3448   of <\/p>\n
2008 and 3476 of 2008.  These Special Leave Petitions may <\/p>\n
now be listed for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
                                         16<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                      ………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           (R. V. Raveendran)<\/p>\n
                                                      ………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           (A. K. Patnaik)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
August 03, 2011.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. … on 3 August, 2011 Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3448 OF 2008 Rakesh Sharma & Ors., … Appellants Versus Chairman\/Managing Director, Uttaranchal Power Corporation & Ors., … Respondents […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55143","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. ... on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. ... on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-03T09:13:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\\\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. … on 3 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T09:13:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2648,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\\\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. ... on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T09:13:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\\\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. … on 3 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. ... on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. ... on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-03T09:13:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. … on 3 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T09:13:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011"},"wordCount":2648,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011","name":"Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. ... on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T09:13:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-sharma-ors-vs-ch-m-d-uttaranchal-power-corp-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs Ch.\/M.D. Uttaranchal Power Corp. … on 3 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55143","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55143"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55143\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55143"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55143"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55143"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}