9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Authority of a Corporation to appoint officers and lay down conditions of service in the absence of regulations. 2. Power of General Manager to issue a notice inviting applications. 3. Claim of right to promotion to a higher post. 4. Dismissal of the petition seeking to adduce additional evidence. 5. Direction for the appellant to pay costs to the respondent. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case pertains to the authority of a Corporation to appoint officers and lay down conditions of service in the absence of regulations. The Court examined relevant sections of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, specifically focusing on Sections 14, 19, 34, and 45. The judgment highlighted that the Corporation has the inherent power to appoint officers and servants as necessary for the efficient performance of its functions, even in the absence of specific regulations. The Court emphasized that until regulations are framed, the Corporation can appoint officers and servants on terms it deems fit, subject to any directions from the State Government. 2. Another issue addressed was the power of the General Manager to issue a notice inviting applications without a specific resolution authorizing him to do so. The Court clarified that in the exercise of general management powers, the General Manager had the authority to issue such a notice. It was noted that the General Manager's action did not result in any appointments being made, thus affirming his power to issue the notice. 3. The Court also considered the respondent's claim of a right to be promoted to a higher post. The judgment highlighted that there was no evidence to support the respondent's assertion of a vested right to promotion. As a result, the claim was not substantiated. 4. Regarding the dismissal of the petition seeking to adduce additional evidence, the Court rejected the respondent's request in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3032 of 1967. The dismissal indicated that the Court did not find merit in allowing the introduction of new evidence or contentions at that stage. 5. Lastly, the judgment addressed the direction for the appellant to pay costs to the respondent, as per the Court's order dated August 17, 1967. The Court upheld the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition. The appellant was directed to bear the costs of the appeal to the respondent, as specified in the order. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the Corporation's authority to appoint officers, the General Manager's power to issue notices, and dismissing the respondent's claim of a right to promotion. The Court also rejected the petition seeking to adduce additional evidence and upheld the direction for the appellant to pay costs to the respondent.
|
