1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.72 OF 2003  

 THE ADMINISTRATOR, RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPN.        .......APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAJNISH KUMAR & ORS.                             ......RESPONDENTS  

JUDGEMENT

This  appeal  is  directed  against  order  dated  18.01.2002  

passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in CWJC  

No.3015/98(R),  whereby  the  draft  scheme  presented  by  the  

Administrator of Ranchi Municipal Corporation for recruitment of  

class-III and class-IV employees was approved by the High Court  

with certain modifications.

Respondent No. 1, Mr. Rajnish Kumar filed a petition in the  

name of public interest litigation questioning the functioning of  

appellant,  Ranchi  Municipal  Corporation  and  its  financial  

accountability.  During the pendency of the writ petition, the  

Division Bench of the High Court passed an order dated 12.8.1999  

whereby the appellant was restrained from making appointment on  

any post.  As a consequence, no recruitment could be made against  

1333 sanctioned class-III and class-IV posts.  

Since the appellant was facing acute shortage of staff, an  

application was filed in the High Court for vacating the interim  

order.   After considering the grievance made in the application,

2

the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  passed  order  dated  

27.9.2001, which reads as under:

“In  this  application,  the  Ranchi  Municipal  Corporation has prayed for a suitable modification  in the order dated 12.8.1999 passed by a Division  Bench of this court whereby the corporation and  its  officials  were  restrained  from  making  any  appointment on any post till further orders from  this court.

In this application (Flag 'Z') it is contended by  the  corporation  that  there  are  altogether  1333  sanctioned class III and class IV posts in the  Ranchi Municipal Corporation and that at present  as many as 363 class IV posts are lying vacant.  Various  reasons  and  grounds  including  those  relating  to  the  cleaning  operations,  removing  garbage etc. have been given in the application  seeking  the  court's  permission  to  make  appointments on these posts.

We have carefully read the writ application.  We  have  gone  through  the  annexures  also  filed  alongwith  the  writ  application.  We  find  from  a  very close reading of the writ application that  the petitioner has not at all made out any case  with respect to any challenge to any class III or  class  IV  posts  either  in  the  past  or  for  any  future appointments.  Despite the fact that the  petitioner  did  not  either  challenge  any  appointment on class III or class IV posts made in  the  past,  nor  sought  any  quashing  of  any  such  order, nor did the petitioner make out any case in  favour of restraining the respondent corporation  from making any such appointment on any such posts  in future, why and under what circumstances did  this court have to issue the aforesaid restrain  order against the corporation on 12.8.1999 is at  all not understood by us.   Since we were at a  total loss to understand as to why did it have to  issue such a blanket restraint orders against the  corporation,  we  tried  our  best  to  take  the  assistance of the learned counsel appearing for  the petitioner to explain to us and educate us as  to the reasons and circumstances under which such  an order had to be passed by this court.

We must say very, very painfully that the learned

3

counsel appearing for the petitioner was not able  to explain to us any reason or ground for this  court having done so.  We repeatedly told him so  that because we do not want to vacate an interim  order unless we are very sure of the reasons and  grounds for doing so, he should explain to us the  aforesaid reasons.  But he could not offer any  help to us.

Since no one has been able to explain to us the  raison d'etre, objective, purpose, background or  the circumstances under which such a blanket order  has  to  be  passed  by  this  court,  we  have  no  hesitation in vacating that order, specially in  view  of  the  fact  that  an  utility  service  like  Ranchi Municipal Corporation cannot be perpetually  restrained  from  keeping  so  many  posts  vacant.  Keeping  posts  vacant  would  vitally  affect  the  functioning  of  the  corporation  in  a  public  interest matter.

We  are,  therefore,  inclined  to  vacate  the  aforesaid restraint order passed by this court on  12.8.1999.

However, before permitting the corporation to make  appointments,  we  would  like  to  know  from  the  corporation the manner and modus operandi, which  it would adopt in making these appointments.  We  are  saying  so  because  we  do  not  want  the  corporation to make appointments in an arbitrary  manner.  We, therefore, direct the corporation to  formulate  a  scheme  whereby  it  proposes  to  make  those appointments.  Undoubtedly, such a scheme  should  ensure  that  the  widest  possible  participation of all eligible candidates would be  invited and that no appointment would be made in  any arbitrary manner.  If Rules already exist for  such a purpose, the corporation need not formulate  any  fresh  scheme  and  can  inform  us  about  the  existent  rule  position.   The  corporation  is,  therefore, directed to file an affidavit in the  court by the next date explaining to us as to how  and  in  what  manner  does  it  propose  to  make  appointments.   We  shall  pass  final  order  only  after going through the said affidavit.”  

On  the  next  date  of  hearing,  the  administrator  of  the  

appellant  presented  a  scheme  for  recruitment  along  with  the

4

relevant rules.  

By the impugned order, the High Court approved the scheme  

subject to various modifications and vacated the interim order  

dated 12.8.1999.  

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused  

the record.

In our opinion, the impugned order is legally unsustainable  

inasmuch  as  it  runs  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  Act  

applicable to Ranchi Municipal Corporation and the Rules framed  

thereunder for recruitment of class-III and class-IV employees.

In the writ petition filed by him by way of public interest  

litigation, the respondent had not challenged vires of the Act or  

the  Rules  which  regulate  recruitment  in  the  services  of  the  

Municipal Corporation.  Therefore, the High Court was not, at  

all, justified in requiring the appellant to present the scheme  

regulating the recruitment of class-III and class-IV employees  

elaborating the procedure and methodology for recruitment against  

the  advertised  post  and  then  issue  directions  for  effecting  

modifications in the scheme.

The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set  

aside.   

We are further of the view that the writ petition filed by  

respondent No.1 was clearly misconceived and the Division Bench  

of the High Court committed a serious error by entertaining the  

same and passing various interim orders.  Therefore, the writ

5

petition is withdrawn to this Court and is dismissed.  The Ranchi  

Municipal  Corporation  shall  now  make  recruitment  against  the  

vacant posts in accordance with the relevant provisions of the  

Act and the Rules framed thereunder. However, it is made clear  

that  any  regular  recruitment  made  during  the  pendency  of  the  

appeal before this Court shall not be adversely affected by this  

direction.   

   .....................J.          (G.S.SINGHVI)  

                    ......................J.  

           (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 27, 2011.

6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3278 OF 2003  

 THE ADMINISTRATOR, RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPN.        .......APPELLANT

VERSUS

SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA & ORS.                       ......RESPONDENTS  

JUDGEMENT

This  is  an  appeal  for  setting  aside  order  dated  

21.03.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand  

High  Court,  whereby  direction  has  been  given  for  

utilisation  of  the  funds  made  available  for  civic  

amenities.  

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  

perused the record.  Shri Anurag Kumar, learned counsel  

appearing for the appellant made available a statement  

showing the details of the steps taken by the Ranchi  

Municipal  Corporation  to  provide  public  conveniences  

during the period from 2001-2002 to 2010-2011. The same  

is taken on record.

In  view  of  the  above,  we  do  not  find  any  

justification to interfere with the direction given by  

the High Court.  

7

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  The High Court  

is requested to dispose of the writ petition as early as  

possible.

               ...........................J.         ( G.S.SINGHVI )  

                                                   ............................J.  

      ( ASOK KUMAR GANGULY )

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 27, 2011.

8