H N DUBE Vs. B N SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of alearned Single Judge of the Allahabad High court dated 31/01/1985 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3602 of 1981.

(2.) The assailing appellant herein H. N. Dube was a respondent before the High court. His appointment as Chief Engineer in the Luck- now Development Authority was rendered illegal and quashed by the impugned judgment. Sequelly direction was given to the State Government to make appointment to the post of Chief Engineer in the Lucknow Development Authority from amongst the members of U. P. Palika Engineering (Superior) Service on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Under an interim order obtained from this court H. N. Dube continued to function as Chief Engineer in the Lucknow Development Authority till he retired in the year 1986. Thereafter it appears that contrary to the directions aforementioned one Surender Singh was appointed as Chief Engineer and his appointment became the subjectmatter of litigation in the High court. An association of Engineers espousing the cause similar to that of Surender Singh, named as the U. P. Developmental Authority Engineers Board through its President Shri S. K. Misra, Chief Engineer, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, U. P. became interested in joining the fray. Finding that H. N. Dube may no longer be meaningfully interested to pursue the instant appeal on account of his retirement, Surender Singh and the Board aforementioned have become parties as co-appellants to pursue this appeal. Otherwise, it is undisputed that H. N. Dube has no live interest in the matter.

(3.) The High court while dealing with Dube's case termed the controversy to be whether the post of Chief Engineer is the post which stood ,transferred to the Lucknow Development Authority under S. 59 (4) of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 or is an independent post created by the Lucknow Development Authority to which members of the Centralised Service have no right of promotion. As indicated earlier the High court decided the matter in one way and that is against H. N. Dube who was appointed as Chief Engineer of the Lucknow Development Authority under the provisions of the aforenamed 1973 Act. It appears that the writ petitioner Shri B. N. Singh, at whose instance the impugned order had been passed, had to move the High court again in a writ petition titled as B. N. Singh v. State of U. P. and Others challenging the appointment of Surender Singh as Chief Engineer after the retirement of H. N. Dube and in that writ petition Surender Singh is a party respondent. We are told that Shri B. N. Singh has challenged the appointment of Surender Singh only on the basis that it is contrary to the directions given by the High court in the judgment presently under appeal. It is, thus, obvious that Surender Singh and the supporting Board are keen to have the position reversed not only here but their contention upheld in the High court as well. On going through the particulars of the case relating to the fact-situation of H. N. Dube alone, we find that the controversy in that regard, as projected, had cropped up incidentally and was decided in passing. It does not appear to us to have been essential to give a verdict in the matter. Instead of Surender Singh and the Board pursuing this appeal as co-appellants so as to have the judgment of the High court upset, we would rather dispose of the appeal by making a request to the High court in getting the writ petition entitled B. N. Singh v. State of U. P. and Others filed on 3/08/1991 disposed of most expeditiously, allowing Surender Singh to be heard canvassing to the contrary to what is stated in the judgment under appeal here and the Board too entitled to maintain to the contrary, likewise. The judgment of the High court instantly under appeal would be no binding precedent to be followed by the High court in the case of B. N. Singh. The persuasive statements made therein, however, would be available to either side to be pressed into service. With these observations we dispose of the appeal, yet making another request to the High court that should the Board apply for being made a party respondent in the case of B. N. Singh, it should allow such prayer so that nobody is left unheard in the matter. The High court may in the changed circumstances permit amendment of the writ petition in case Shri B. N. Singh applies for the purpose, and correspondingly other pleadings. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.