?No straightjacket formula? to be applied for condonation of delay: SC

Stating that petitions should not be ?thrown out on technicalities,? the Supreme Court has asserted that an attempt should always be made by the courts to allow the matter to be contested on merits, ?unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party?. It said: ?While considering the application for condonation of delay, no straightjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves.?

The observations have come in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh where the trust had acquired land from four land owners in 1989 in village Jabaddi Tehsil for development scheme popularly known as 550 Acres Scheme. The Reference Court had fixed the compensation at Rs 4.27 lakh with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. However, the landowners had to move the court as the trust failed to pay them. It ordered attachment of the trust land to pay the owners. After one Jagan Singh and Co bought the land in auction for Rs 22.65 lakh, the trust ?woke up from its slumber? and filed objections. Even then the trust failed to take part in the court proceedings and its advocate PK Jain did not appear, thus delaying the case for a decade.

The trust moved the apex court pursuant to the executing court denying it an opportunity to lead evidence and prove the issues so formulated. Even the SC objected to the late appeal, but felt that the delay in this case was not due to malafides and, therefore, the lapse could be condoned. Moreover, the delay had not been ?so huge warranting its dismissal on such hypertechnical ground,? it said and asked the trust to pay Rs 50,000 to the company for causing inconvenience and harassment. Senior counsel Salil Sagar and Arun K Sinha contended that the trust had been contesting the matter in right earnest from the very beginning. On the other hand, senior counsel Vijay Hansaria, appearing for one of the respondents, submitted that the documents reveal the callous and negligent attitude of the trust and its advocate, therefore no indulgence should be shown to it.

No relief for health workers

An employee can?t claim right to regularisation if his initial appointment was illegal, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Md Ashif vs State of Bihar. A number of voluntary health workers were appointed in June 1985 to manage state-run dispensaries in Darbhanga district in Bihar on an honorarium of Rs 50. The chief medical officer had regularised them as primary health workers in less than five months after their appointment and they continued to work for 15 years until their services were terminated in February 2001. The termination came pursuant to an enquiry, which revealed that the appointments as Primary Health Workers were illegal and in breach of circular/instructions issued by the government. Aggrieved by the termination order, the employees moved the Patna High Court, which ruled against them. Even the SC upheld the government?s action stating that their initial appointment was illegal and the very fact that they had worked for a long period did not cure that defect so as to justify their reinstatement in service.

The employees argued that the appointments had been made after a proper advertisement and that the termination of their services 15 years after the commission of the alleged irregularity in making the appointments was unfair and legally impermissible. Relying on its earlier Constitution Bench judgement in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors vs Uma Devi, the apex court said that in cases where the process itself is completely violative of the constitutional scheme underlying public employment and no procedure has been followed while granting such appointments, the court cannot allow such an illegality to continue irrespective of the length of time for which it has continued.

HPCL distributorship: SC sets aside Allahabad HC order

The Supreme Court has quashed the Allahabad High Court judgement in a matter related to state-owned Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd?s gas distributorship. HPCL had invited applications in February 2004 for appointment as LPG distributor at Nawabgunj, Uttar Pradesh. While 10 persons were interviewed by the firm, one Monika Gupta was selected. However, the selection was challenged by other aspirants Ragini Bhardwaj and others in the high court on the grounds that the selection committee had not awarded the marks as per the criteria specified in the brochure. After the high court asked the public sector company to reconsider Bhardwaj?s representation, the company cancelled the whole list in July 2008 and started the selection process afresh.

The apex court, on Gupta?s appeal, set aside the high court order and directed the PSU to allot the contract to the successful candidate of the original list. Senior counsel MN Krishnamani, appearing for Gupta, argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the high court had failed to see that other aspirants had not furnished necessary details along with their application forms.

Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, appearing for HPCL, submitted that it would be in the interest of justice, if the company was allowed to re-advertise the LPG distributorship in question because no discernible method was followed by the concerned authorities for entertaining the applications. Counsel Rekha Pandey, appearing for one of the unsuccessful candidates, argued that the first merit was rightly cancelled because her client was not awarded marks in accordance with the criteria.