Uma Shankar Sharma v. the Union of India and Ors.

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2994 of 1979. I Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated ' 11-7-1979 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Petition,No. 1936 of 1979. Dr. Y. S. Chitale and.P. P. Singh for the Appellant. R. B. Datar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PAmAK, J : This appeal by special leave is directed againstan order of the Patna High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition against the termination of his services. The Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Patna, invited, by an advertisement dated 30th July, 1975, applications for filling up some posts of Inspector of Central Excise. Among those eligible for selection were "sportsmen who have represented the Universities in the Inter-University Tournament conducted by the Inter-University Sports Board." The appellant, who was studying in the M. A. (Political Science) in the Mithila etJniversity, was one of the applicants and he was directed to appear for a physical test and, an interview.

On 12th December, 1975 _the Collector of Central &cise and Customs issued a letter informing the appellant that he had been selected for appointment in a temporary vacancy of Inspector, and that he would be on probation for a period of two years. The appellant joined the post and continued therein. On 30th April, 1976 he received a letter from the Assistant Collector (Headquarters) Central Excise pointing out that he had submitted atte~ted copies only of the sports certificates along: with his application foe appointment and he was directed to submitJthe:original certificates. The appellant forwarded the original certificates. Nothing happened for some time, and the appe!Iant continued in the post without any objection. It was almost a year later that the Assistant Collector (Headquarters) wrote to the appellant to supply details of the tournament at SUPREME COURT RBPUK I> [1980] 3 S.C.lt. 'Yhich he had represelltOd the University. OR 27tl!.

Fel!lruary, 19V8 the llf>P~ltmt refet'l'etlto ttib Sp<!lrts GG!ltiftoatll dat~ 28th July, 1975 issm:d "Y th\! Diit!lllfy Regl!ltt!lt of the L. l'IT. Mlthllll T:Jnh•ersiry, Da!'blianga. tl~igi'i!al C'ettlllcatl! had bee!\ sent by film to the Collector, along with the other cettiffcates on 5th .May, 1970. The appellant explained that he had qualified and was selected, to represent the Mithila University in the Inter-University Tournament to be held at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, in the year 1972 bllt that.a serious illness had intervened and prevented him from aotually participating in the tournam:nt.

H: p)inted out that this had been made clear byhim;during the interview·for selection before the Appointments Committee and that as he ,had b~eti discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his , sup:lfor officers ever since December, 1975 and had, in fact,. captained the sports team on behalf of the Excise Department at Calcutta for two years, he. was astonished that the question should be raised now. Another fourteen months later, on 16th June, 1979, the Assistant Collector (HeadqlfarterS) made an order, purporting to be under the 'proviso to sub-rule (I) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Tem-' porary Service) Rules 1965, terminating the services of the appellant. Tl:te ap)l~\tant theh applied for re1tef under Article 226 of the Consti· . ttitiun to tlie Hilih C®rt against the c5rder, but the High Court has snmm1rily dismissed the writ petition.

Iii tliis app:al, the itppellant contends that he fulfile4 the conditions of eligibility and that there was no justification for terminating his services. "t'' The case of the respondents is that the appellant was appointed under a mistak-e inasmw:h as the oondltion of eligibility required actual representation. of a University in an Inter-University Tournament conducted by the Inter-University Sports Board and that, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any relief against the termination of -~ his services. Having given the matter our careful consideration, it seems to us that the respondents have proceeded on a technical view of the matter wholly unjustified by the intent behind the condition of eligibility. The condition required that the applicant should have been a sportsman who had represented his university in an Inter-University Tournament conducted by the Inter-University Sports Board.

There is no dispute before us that the appellant did qualify, and was selected, for representing the :Mithila University in the Inter-University Tournament at the Banaras Hindu University in the year 1972. All that remained was that he should have participated in the tournament. Unfortunately, for him, he fell ill and was unable to do so. The fact that he fell ill, r UMA SHANKER v. UNION (Pathak, J.) and for that reason w.as u11a.ble to re,pri:&ent .b,i~ university, is not dis· puted. There is nothing to ~how that but for that illness he would not have actually taken part in the tournament. It seems to us that on a reasonable view ofthe facts the appellant shoul<l be. taken to have fulfilled the condition of eligibility. The terms and conditions of sel'Vice are intended to be constrll¢ reilsOl\~ly, and too technical a view can defeat the essential spirit and intent embodied in thenj.

Tb.e int~ntion was to appoint meritorious sportsmen to the posts, and that object is served if a person who had qualified and was selected for representing his university in an Inter-University Tournament conducted by the Inter-University Sports Board i~ appoi)),ted, notwith· sta.nding that he was actually prevented from par;ticip11ting b,eca~ of reasons beyond his control. We have no doubt that on the interpretation which has found favour with us the appellant will he entitled .to a certificiit.e of eligibility, a requirement postulated by the terms of his appointment. The appeal is allowed, the .order dated 16th J\llle, 1979 made .by the Assistant Collector (Headquarters) i~ qu11she<;I 'and .the respon~lllltls Me directed to treat the appellant.as oontinuing in service. The appeliant is entitled to his (;osts throughout. S . .R. Jppea/ al i owed.