Mannu Prasad Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. .
- SCC(2017) 14 SCC 581
- Neutral2017 INSC 619
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an authority is directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal to reconsider a matter of selection or appointment, the reconsideration must afford both parties an opportunity of hearing; the absence of one party from such hearing shall be treated as that party having waived its interest, with the consequence that the appointment of the other party stands as valid; and the reconsideration must proceed untrammeled by the observations and findings of the Tribunal itself, with the authority undertaking a fresh evaluation unburdened by those prior observations.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9077 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 25435 OF 2008 ]
MANNU PRASAD SINGH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The matter pertains to the appointment of an
Extra Department Branch Post Master in the year 2001.
According to the appellant, he has been continuing in
service ever since 2001. The dispute is between the
appellant and Respondent No. 4.
3. It appears that despite several efforts,
Respondent No. 4 could not be served. Be that as it
may, the Central Administrative Tribunal has directed
the Union of India to reconsider the matter of
selection.
4. We make it clear that in the process of
reconsideration, the appellant as well as Respondent
No. 4 shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing.
In case Respondent No. 4 does not turn up for the Signature Not Verified
hearing, it will be treated for all purposes that the Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.08.05 12:52:23 IST Reason:
appellant had been appointed validly and he would be
continuing as per rules.
2
5. However, we make it clear that in the process of
reconsideration, all the contentions raised by the
appellant shall be looked into. We also make it
clear that in the fresh consideration as per the
directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
notice needs to be issued to the appellant and the
fourth respondent only.
6. Needless also to say that the reconsideration
shall be made untrammeled by any observations and
findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
7. With the above observations and directions, this
appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
8. Since we have disposed of the appeal, the order
dated 02.09.2016 for deposit of costs of Rs. 5,000/-
is recalled.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi;
July 14, 2017.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free