Shri V.S. Krishnan v. Union of India and Anr.

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was contractually employed by the respondent no.2/ Society of Integrated Coastal Management (SICOM) as Procurement Officer seeks the relief of quashing of the order of the respondent no.2 dated 21.11.2014 terminating the employment of the petitioner. Respondent no.2 is Society of Integrated Coastal Management (SICOM) and is engaged in the work of integrated coastal management. Petitioner was appointed by the respondent no.2 as a Procurement Officer vide respondent no.2’s letter dated 26.8.2010. Clause 3(h) of this appointment letter reads as under:- 2015:DHC:4079 “3(h) Procurement Officer appointment is subject to co-termination with the SICOM for Administrative decisions of the Governing Council of SICOM.”

2. I may for the sake of giving clarity note that between the expression SICOM and Administrative in this clause the expression should be “or” and not “for” as is typed by the petitioner and even if “for” has been typed wrongly by the respondent no.2 itself in the original letter dated 26.8.2010 obviously it is a typing mistake because appointment of the petitioner as per this clause was either on termination of the SICOM project or for administrative reasons given by the governing council of SICOM.

3. As per the respondent no.2, employment of the petitioner was terminated because there was no need of the post of a Procurement Officer and procurement was now on abolition of the post directed to be done by a procurement committee and these details are given in preliminary submission 2 of the counter affidavit of the respondent no.2 and which reads as under:- “2. In place of the Procurement Officer Society of Integrated Coastal Management has but in place the following mechanism which are more transparent and effective:-

(i) Finance Sub-Committee of GC of SICOM-for major procurement issues/matters

(ii) Three member Committee to examine and make recommendations to National Project Director relating to procurement matters of SICOM, consisting of an official from IFD, MoEF&CC, an Officer from Survey of India and Procurement Specialist, NMCG, Ministry of Water Resources.

(iii) Accounts Officer, Society of Integrated Coastal Management

(iv) Procurement and Financial Management Consultants.”

4. Respondent no.2 has therefore abolished the post of Procurement Officer and as per para 3.[1] of the preliminary submissions of the counter affidavit necessary approval has also been taken from the World Bank vide email dated 13.3.2015 annexed as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit.

5. Before I turn to the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, it requires to be noted that an employer has always a right to abolish the post. In fact, even the Central Government has a right to abolish the post and thereby terminate the employment of its employee and this is so held by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Navneet Verma (2008) 2 SCC 65. The relevant para of this judgment which summarizes the ratio of this case is para 17 and which reads as under:- “17. We summarize the power of Government in abolishing a post and role of the court for interference: a) the power to create or abolish a post rests with the Government; b) whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity; c) creation and abolition of posts is a matter of government policy and every sovereign government has this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration; d) creation, continuance and abolition of posts are all decided by the Government in the interest of administration and general public; e) the court would be the least competent in the face of scanty material to decide whether the Government acted honestly in creating a post or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from mala fide, legal or factual; f) as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted. With the above principles, let us consider whether the abolition of the posts of Accounts Executives are justified and consequential order of termination terminating the respondent-herein from the said post is sustainable.”

6. A reading of the para 17 of the judgment in the case of Navneet Verma (supra) shows that the government has the absolute privilege to create or abolish the post and decide as per the exigency of the situation with respect to non-continuation of a post. Courts cannot step in for substituting its decision with that of the competent authority for abolishing the post provided the government is found to have acted bonafidely and honestly. Therefore, the only aspect to be considered is whether the respondent no.2 has acted bonafidely in the facts of the present case in abolishing the post resulting in termination of services of the petitioner.

7. In my opinion the aspect with respect to bonafides of the respondent no.2 in abolishing the post cannot be questioned because the project in question is financed by the World Bank and even as per the petitioner permission was required to be taken of the World Bank for abolishing the post, and this permission has been obtained by the respondent no.2 and which has been filed as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit as stated above. Once the relevant officer of the World Bank has examined the matter and has given no objection for abolishing of the post of the Procurement Officer and substitution of the job of the Procurement Officer by a committee, then, merely because petitioner alleges malafide and corruption which he says he pointed out including action of appointing contractor on single window basis will not and cannot mean that with respect to the allegations and such materials relied upon by the petitioner, it can be held by the Court that respondent no.2 was not acting fairly. As already stated above, once the World Bank has given its no objection for abolishing of the post, bonafides of the respondent no.2 cannot be questioned. It is also to be noted that as per the respondent no.2 since limited finances are available with it there was no need of a specialized Procurement Officer and incurring expenditure with respect thereto once the aspect of said procurement can always be looked into by existing employees/officers of the respondent no.2.

8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the petitioner cannot be granted the relief of cancellation of termination of his employment which was done by the respondent no.2 vide its letter dated 21.11.2014 because the respondent no. 2 had bonafidely abolished the post of Procurement Officer.

9. Dismissed. No costs. MAY 06, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne