# Suresh Chandra v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 83
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-24
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-chandra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44276
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

8 All. Suresh Chandra Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
83
(2016) 8 ILRA 83
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J.

Service Single No.- 17146 Of 2016

Suresh Chandra ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Vivek Raj Singh, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C., Ajay Kumar
Held

A deputationist has no right to continue in the borrowing department and can be repatriated at any
time.

Formation of a unified cadre (2014 Rules) does not change the employer:
The employer remains the State Government, not individual departments.
Directing the petitioner to join Internal Accounts and Audit Directorate instead of Agriculture
Department is valid:

It does not amount to change of employer.
Consent or willingness of the employee is not required:
As there is no change of employer, and
No adverse service condition is shown.
Unification of cadres across departments amounts to valid restructuring:
It is a reorganization/rearrangement of posts.
The State has exclusive power to:
Create/abolish posts,
Restructure cadres,
Frame service rules under Article 309.
Judicial review in such matters is limited:
Interference only if arbitrary, mala fide, or illegal.
No such illegality found.
The impugned orders dated 12.05.2016 and 20.06.2016 are valid.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Direction:
If petitioner rejoins, period shall not be treated as break in service.

CASE LAW CITED
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Jawaharlal Nehru University v. Dr. K.S. Jawatkar
Orissa Electrical Engineers Service Association v. State of Orissa
BALCO Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh v. NTPC
Jawaharlal Nehru University v. Dr. K.S. Jawatkar
Orissa Electrical Engineers Service Association v. State of Orissa
BALCO Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh v. NTPC
Union of India v. Pushpa Rani
P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devendra
Upadhyaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and
Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Specialist/District Basic Education Officer,
Gaziabad.

2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by
the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.05.2016, passed by the Internal Accounts and Audit
Directorate, U.P. Lucknow, whereby his deputation as Assistant Finance and Accounts Officer in
the office of Specialist/District Basic Education Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, District Project
Office, district-Gaziabad has been withdrawn and he has been repatriated and ordered to submit his
joining in the Directorate of Internal Accounts and Audit, U.P.

3. The petitioner has also assailed the consequential order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the
Additional Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, whereby he has been repatriated to his alleged
parent department of Internal Accounts and Audit Directorate, U.P. Lucknow.

4. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Accountant under the
order dated 10.11.1999 passed by the Additional Director of Agriculture, U.P. which is contained
in annexure no.SA-1 appended to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner dated
26.07.2016. The said initial appointment of the petitioner in the agriculture department was made in
terms of the provisions contained in the Service Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Agriculture
Department Accounts Non-Gazetted Service Rules, 1982 read with the provisions contained in
another set of statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as Uttar
Pradesh Procedure for Appointment against Group C Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service
Commission Rules, 1998. The initial appointment of the petitioner was, thus, made by the State
Government in the department of agriculture.

5. On inception of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, a project being run by the State Government,
certain posts on temporary basis were created including the post of Assistant Finance and Accounts
Officer. On several posts including the post of Assistant Finance and Accounts Officer available in
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, provisions were made for making appointment on the basis of selection on
deputation. The petitioner appears to have applied for his appointment on deputation on the post of
Assistant Finance and Accounts Officer in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and accordingly on his
8 All. Suresh Chandra Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
85
selection, he was appointed on the said post and was posted at district Bagpat. The said
appointment of the petitioner by way of deputation in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was made on the
permission accorded to the said deputation by the order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Additional
Director of Agriculture (Administration) U.P. The initial order of appointment of the petitioner on
the post of Assistant Finance and Accounts Officer in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan district Bagpat has
been annexed as annexure no.3 to the writ petition, which clearly indicates that during the
petitioner's appointment on deputation in the borrowing department, namely, Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan, his lien to his parent department i.e. agriculture department shall be maintained. Though
the appointment of the petitioner on deputation initially was made for a period of one year,
however, his appointment in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan has continued till the impugned order dated
12.05.2016 and the consequential order dated 20.06.2016 were passed.

6. The basic premise of attack to the impugned action on the part of the respondents as
canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Raj Singh, is that since the
petitioner, who was initially appointed in the agriculture department and his lien was intact in the
agriculture department, as such he could not be repatriated on completion or termination of his
deputation to any department other than the department of agriculture. He has, thus, submitted that
the impugned order dated 12.05.2016, passed by the Director, Internal Accounts and Audit
Directorate, U.P., Lucknow, whereby his deputation has not only been recalled but he has also been
directed to report for submitting his joining in the Directorate of Internal Accounts and Audit, is
unlawful. His submission, in sum and substance, is that the petitioner's parent department, thus,
cannot be changed or altered without his willingness or consent having been obtained by the
respondents and in the instant case, in fact, by the impugned order dated 12.05.2016, his employer
is being changed from the agriculture department of the State of U.P. to the department of Internal
Accounts and Audit which is impermissible. He has further stated that since the consequential order
repatriating the petitioner from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan has been passed by the Additional Project
Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan consequent upon the order dated 12.05.216, as such it is not only
that the order dated 12.05.2016 is illegal but the same in fact makes the order dated 20.06.2016
repatriating the petitioner from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan also illegal.

7. Strongly refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Devendra Upadhyaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that, as a matter of
fact, a deputationist does not have any right to remain posted in the borrowing department, rather as
and when services of deputationist are required by the parent department, he can be recalled to the
parent department. He has also stated that the order dated 12.05.2016 has been passed by the
Director, Internal Accounts and Audit Directorate, U.P. recalling the petitioner from deputation
from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and directing him to submit his joining in the Directorate of Internal
Accounts and Audit as a consequence of restructuring of different cadres of Assistant Accountants
and Accountants in almost 37 departments of the State Government which have been unified to
form a single cadre and for the said purpose rules have also been framed by the State Government
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as U.P. Government Department Subordinate
Accounts Cadre (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 2014 which have been notified on 07.11.2014. His
submission, thus, is that on forming a unified cadre comprising of all the Assistant Accountants and
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Accountants working in different department of U.P., including the Assistant Accountants and
Accountants working in agriculture department, the State Government has exercised its
administrative discretion and prerogative to restructure different cadres by unifying them into one
and hence, there is nothing unlawful or illegal which can be complained of by the petitioner.

8. Drawing attention of the Court to the entire exercise undertaken by the State
Government preceding notification of 2014 Rules on 07.11.2014, it has been submitted by the
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that formation of unified cadre comprising of the
incumbents holding the post of Assistant Accountants and Accountants in various departments of
the State Government has a purpose to achieve which is based on the recommendations made by
the Pay Committee in the year 2008 formed for the purposes of making recommendations in the
context of the recommendations made by the Sixth Central Pay Commission. He has taken the
Court to the 10th representation (Part 6) made by the Pay Committee and has submitted that to
achieve the said purpose as mentioned in the aforesaid representation made by the Pay Committee,
unification of the cadres has been done and hence, the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is not tenable.

9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and having perused various pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel
in support and in opposition of the case of the petitioner, the Court is unable to agree with the
contentions and submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for the
reasons which are to follow.

10. The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is two folds.
Firstly, he has submitted that, in fact, it is a case where by passing the order dated 12.05.2016 on
the ground of formation of a unified cadre, respondents have changed the employer of the
petitioner which is not only unreasonable and arbitrary but is also impermissible legally for the
reason that before change of employer no willingness or consent from the petitioner was ever
sought. His submission is that the petitioner was initially appointed in agriculture department and
even after having been sent on deputation to Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, his lien is maintained in
agriculture department and as such notwithstanding there being no illegality in repatriating the
petitioner, the impugned order dated 12.05.2016, whereby the petitioner has been directed to
submit his joining not in his parent department of agriculture, but in the department of Internal
Accounts and Audit, is completely unlawful.

11. Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has secondly, submitted that
the alleged exercise which has resulted in formation of a unified cadre comprising of the posts of
Assistant Accountants and Accountants in various government departments cannot be termed to be
reconstructing, as a matter of fact, a new department has been created by the said exercise.
Elaborating his aforesaid argument, it has been contended by Shri Singh that reconstructing of a
cadre is permissible within a department and unification of cadres comprising of posts earlier
belonging to different government departments cannot be termed to be restructuring for the reason
that the State Government cannot be permitted to withdraw all the Assistant Accountants and
8 All. Suresh Chandra Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
87
Accountants working in different departments and appoint and place them in a newly created
department.

12. Considering the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it can
only be observed that by forming a unified cadre, namely, Subordinate Accounts Cadre of NonGazetted Employees, neither any new department is being created nor the employer of the
petitioner and other such Assistant Accountants or Accountants is being changed. Employer of the
petitioner is the State Government and even after unification of the cadre it remains the State
Government. The distinction being drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner between the
agriculture department and the department of Internal Accounts and Audit to submit the impugned
action has resulted in change of employer is highly misplaced and misconceived for the reason that
under our Constitutional framework the State is only one entity which functions and discharges its
executive duties and powers through various departments created for convenient transaction of its
business. The formation of a department for convenient functioning and discharge of duties by the
State Government (though in the instant case, even the same has not been done) cannot be said to
have resulted in change of employer.

13. As already observed above, in the instant case, the petitioner was appointed initially as
a government employee and he will remain employed by the State Government itself for the reason
that his status as a government employee will not be changed on unification of the cadres. The
petitioner will be governed by the provisions of the Constitution more specifically the provisions
contained under Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India. He will keep on enjoying
the protection available to him under Article 311 of the Constitution of India which is available to
the employees who hold a civil post under State. Similarly, the pleasure doctrine expressed in
Article 310 will be applicable to the petitioner even after formation of the unified cadre. This
discussion makes it clear that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
by forming a unified cadre, since the petitioner will now be governed by the department of Internal
Accounts and Audit, his employer will get changed is misconceived which merits rejection.

14. As far as the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the
petitioner's employer is getting changed by promulgation of 2014 Rules whereby a unified cadre
has been formed, it was incumbent upon the State authorities to have asked for his willingness or
his consent is concerned, the same is liable to be rejected being highly misconceived for the reason
that such willingness or consent under law is required to be sought from an employee in a situation
or in a case where either the terms of employment are going to adversely affect the employee or his
employer is being changed. In the instant case, as has already observed above, by formation of
unified cadre comprising of various posts of Assistant Accountants and Accountants in almost 37
departments of the State Government, employer of such employees, who were earlier holding the
said posts in the different departments, is not going to be changed. The petitioner has also
completely failed to establish that service conditions of the petitioner are going to affect him
adversely by formation of unified cadre. Thus, the said argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is also not tenable.
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of
Jawaharlal Nehru University vs. Dr. K.S. Jawatkar and others, reported in [1989 Supp (1) SCC
679], Orissa Electrical Engineers' Service Association vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in
[(1998) 2 SCC 563] and Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh and another vs. National
Thermal Power Corporation and others, reported in [(2007) 14 SCC 234] are not applicable
here and in fact the same do not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the reason that in all the
aforesaid cases Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that willingness or consent is required for
absorption of an employee in the services of a subsequent employer and in the aforesaid cases the
original employers of the employees were changed, wherein as in the present case there is no
change of employer.

16. In the instant case, since employer of the petitioner remains the State Government, the
aforesaid judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to him.

17. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact
unification of cadre in the manner in which the same has been done by the State Government in the
instant case, cannot be termed to be restructuring of cadre. According to him, restructuring of cadre
would mean any restructuring within the department and the same would not encompass in its folds
borrowing employees working on the post of Assistant Accountants and Accountants in other
departments and withdrawing them to form a unified cadre comprising of the post of Assistant
Accountants and Accountants. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhole Govind Saheb Rao and
others vs. Union of India and others, reported in [(2015) 6 SCC 727]. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied on para 9 of the said judgment wherein certain facts have been noted by
Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, para 9 of the said judgment does not anywhere lay down a law
that in case two cadres belonging to different departments of the same government are merged to
form of a single unified solitary cadre, the same would not amount to restructuring. The petitioner
has also placed reliance on yet another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and another vs. Lieutenant Colonel P.K. Choudhary and others, reported in [(2016) 4 SCC
236]. Referring to para 4 of the said judgment wherein certain observations have been made by
Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to recommendations made by Kargil Review Committee
constituted by the Government of India, Post Kargil War, for exploring the ways and means for
enhancing the operational preparedness of the Indian Army in its fighting capabilities, it has further
been noticed in the said paragraph of aforesaid judgment that the said Committee had conducted
deliberations and submitted a report making certain suggestions to take certain measures that were
in its opinion necessary for restructuring of officers cadre of the Army. The aforesaid judgment
being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not anywhere state that the
manner in which in the present case unification of cadres has been done, is impermissible in law.

18. Thus, the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does
not have any relevance so far as the issue involved in the present case is concerned.
8 All. Suresh Chandra Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
89
19. A great emphasis has been led by Shri Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner to submit that the exercise in question conducted by the State of U.P. in the present case
which has resulted in unification of cadre cannot be said to be restructuring of cadre needs to be
considered in the light of the meaning of the word 'restructuring'. 'Restructure' as defined in Oxford
Concise English Dictionary means to give a new structure, to rebuild or to rearrange. What has
been done in the instant case is that the posts of Assistant Accountants and Accountants which
were earlier created in different departments of the State Government have been rearranged to build
a single cadre, as such unification of the cadre in this case is nothing but restructuring.

20. So far as the word 'cadre' is concerned, the same has been defined in fundamental rule
9(4) of the Financial Handbook Vol.II (Part-II) which means strength of a service or a part of a
service sanctioned as a separate unit. The word 'cadre' as defined in Financial Handbook is as
under;

"Cadre means the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a
separate unit."

21. The facts of the instant case establish that post of Assistant Accountants and
Accountants in different departments of the State Government have been unified to form a single
solitary cadre sanctioned as a separate unit by notifying 2014 Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India on 07.11.2014.

22. On the 10th representation (Part-6) made by the Pay Committee, the matter appears to
have been considered by the State Government which passed a Government Order on 10.10.2011
taking into account the recommendations made by the Pay Committee and has, thus, decided to
form a unified cadre comprising of the posts of Assistant Accountants and Accountants in different
departments of the State Government. The Court need not go into the objects of creation of the
unified cadre as the same lies in the exclusive domain of the administrative authorities of the State
to adopt a particular policy of having different cadres or a unified cadre comprising of particular
posts. The State Government thereafter issued another Government Order dated 28.11.2011 for
giving effect to to the recommendations made by the Pay Committee in its 10th representation
(Part-6). The said Government Order embodies certain decisions of the State Government. The
decision taken which are embodied in the Government Order dated 28.11.2011 are; (i) Assistant
Accountants and Accountants working in different subordinate cadres of different departments will
be selected, appointed and transferred by the Internal Accounts and Audit department and
accordingly the selected candidate should be allocated to the different departments. Yet another
decision was taken by the State Government that for the purposes of streamlining and strengthening
the aforesaid procedure, the Directorate of Internal Accounts and Audit be also strengthened and
the name of the said Directorate be changed from the Directorate of Internal Audit to the
Directorate of Internal Accounts and Audit. As a matter of fact, it is in pursuance of the aforesaid
decision taken by the State Government that the Directorate of Internal Audit which was known by
the said name earlier is now known as the Directorate of Internal Accounts and Audit. The said
rechristening of the Directorate will firstly not amount to creation of another department and even
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

if some other department can be said to have been created, since the same lies in the exclusive
domain of the administration authorities of the State, no fault in the same can be found to give
effect to the decision taken by the State Government on the recommendations made by the Pay
Committee Rules under Article 309 have been framed which have been notified on 07.11.2014 and
the said rules apply to the posts of Combined Subordinate Accounts Cadre in the Government
Departments. Of course, the administrative department in the instant case is the finance department,
however, only because of change of administrative department from Agriculture to Finance, it
cannot be said that the employer of the petitioner has been changed and thus, the submission made
by learned counsel for the petitioner in reference to the willingness and consent cannot be accepted
to which is liable to be rejected.

23. As to the authority and power of the Government to restructure a cadre, reference can
be had to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and
others, reported in [(2008) 9 SCC 242] wherein the Apex Court in very clear terms has held that
matters relating to creation, abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres,
prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria for selection etc. fall within
the exclusive domain of the employer. The said observations occur in para 37 of the said judgment
in the case of Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and others, which is extracted hereunder:

"37.Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate
the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and
structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications,
criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain
of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also
the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if
it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision
or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the
judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or
promotion or by transfer. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or
laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open the Court to make comparative evaluation
of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should
structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration."

24. Similar observations have been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court yet in another case of
P. U. Joshi and others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, reported in [(2003) 2
SCC 632], wherein it has clearly been held that the issue relating to constitution, pattern,
nomenclature of posts and cadres, categories, and their creation/abolition, prescription for
qualification and other conditions of service is a policy within the exclusive discretion and
jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, the limitations of restrictions envisaged in the
Constitution of India but it is not for the courts to direct the Government to have a method of
recruitment or eligibility criteria by substituting its views for that of the State. Para 10 of the
aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. U. Joshi and others (supra) runs as
under:
8 All. Suresh Chandra Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
91

"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties.
Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their
creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues
of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy is within
the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or
restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any
rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or
avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is
well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter
or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other
conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative
exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to
amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of
posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as
reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from
time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in
any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever
the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or
safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a
Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring
into force new rules relating to even an existing service. "

25. In the instant case as well, as observed above, the petitioner has not been able to
establish that the unification of the cadre comprising of various posts of Assistant Accountants and
Accountants which were earlier available in different departments of the State Government in any
manner has infringed any of the constitutional or statutory provisions. Thus, the illegality as is
being submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned action on the part of the
respondents is not in sight here.

26. For the aforesaid discussions made herein above, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed, which, resultantly, is hereby dismissed.

27. It is, however, provided that if the petitioner submits his joining pursuant to the
impugned orders dated 12.05.2016 and the consequential order dated 20.06.2016 which have been
annexed as annexure nos.1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition, the same shall be accepted by the
respondents without treating the period from the date of passing of the impugned orders till he
submits his joining as break in service. The petitioner is permitted to submit his joining pursuant to
the orders which are under challenge in this writ petition within three weeks from today.

28. There will be no order as to costs.
-----------
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 92
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. VIJAY LAXMI, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 19745 Of 2016

Sarojini Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Abhinav Singh, Pramod Kumar Khare

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C., Madhulika Yadav, S.K. Sharma, Shivam Sharma
Held

The Court held that the impugned tender notice dated 08.08.2016/13.08.2016 was vitiated due to
non-compliance with the statutory procedure governing Zila Panchayat functioning.

Although the issue of validity of constitution of committees was raised, the Court declined to adjudicate
it since an alternative statutory remedy exists under Rule 18 of the U.P. Zila Panchayats (Formation of
Committees) Rules, 1997.

The Court found that the agenda dated 13.07.2016 was illegal, as it included business of the Planning
and Development Committee before such committee was even constituted.

The entire process-

Constitution of committees,

Discussion of projects, and
Approval of 174 projects

 -was completed on the same day within about 11⁄2 hours, which showed complete lack of
deliberation.

The Court held that such a hurried exercise amounted to a mere paper formality (eye wash) and was
arbitrary in nature.

It was emphasized that statutory committees are independent bodies, and the Zila Panchayat itself
cannot assume their functions or pre-determine their agenda.