9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Regulation 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Services Classifications of and Recruitment Regulations, 1981. 2. Validity of the State Government's direction to appoint an officer on deputation. 3. Amendment of pleadings in the context of adverse possession. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Regulation 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Services Classifications of and Recruitment Regulations, 1981: The primary issue in this case revolves around the correct interpretation of Regulation 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Services Classifications of and Recruitment Regulations, 1981. The appellants argued that no appointment on deputation could be made to the post of Assistant Housing Commissioner (Technical) unless it was determined that no suitable eligible candidate was available for promotion from among the eligible Executive Engineers of the Housing Board. The State Government, on the other hand, contended that Regulation 3 provides three alternative modes of appointment to the said post and that the appointment in question was directed to be made under sub-clause (b) of clause (1), which allows for calling Executive Engineers on deputation from the State Building and Communication Department. 2. Validity of the State Government's direction to appoint an officer on deputation: The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Regulation 3 in detail. Clause (1) of Regulation 3 provides three modes of filling the post: (a) by promotion of employees working as Executive Engineers in the Housing Board, (b) by calling Executive Engineers on deputation from the State Building and Communication Department, and (c) by direct selection from among candidates called for interview. Clause (2) sets out the eligibility criteria for promotion, and Clause (3) specifies the conditions under which an Executive Engineer from the State Government's Building and Communication Department can be appointed on deputation. The Court concluded that Clause (3) does not set out an additional, fourth mode of filling the post but merely provides the conditions for deputation if no suitable candidate is available for promotion. The Court emphasized that Regulation 3 must be interpreted to avoid arbitrariness and uncanalised power, ensuring that the post is filled by promotion first, and only if no suitable candidate is available, by deputation or direct selection. 3. Amendment of pleadings in the context of adverse possession: In the second appeal, the respondent sought to amend the written statement to include a plea of adverse possession. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled law that parties can raise mutually inconsistent pleas, and amendments to pleadings can be made at any stage of the proceedings. However, the Court noted that the plea of adverse possession is inconsistent with the respondent's earlier plea of ownership. The respondent had never renounced his title nor admitted the appellant's title, and the plea of adverse possession was not raised in the initial written statement. The Court found that the High Court erred in permitting the respondent to raise the plea of adverse possession at a belated stage without any explanation. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits according to law. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order under appeal. The direction given to the Gujarat Housing Board by the State Government to fill the post of Assistant Housing Commissioner (Technical) by deputation was set aside. The Gujarat Housing Board was directed to proceed with filling the post in accordance with the interpretation of Regulation 3 as provided by the Court. The appeal regarding the amendment of pleadings was also allowed, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits.
|
