NDLI: J.s. Yadav Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	23 25 Protection of Human Rights Act 1993: ss.21 2006 26 - Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (10 of 1994)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23 Referred Case 24
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: ss.21, 23, 25, 26- Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 - Appellant, District Judge appointed as Member of the State Human Rights Commission in 2006 for a period of 5 years under the provisions of the Act of 1993 - After coming into force of Amendment Act of 2006, the eligibility criteria for appointment of Member was changed and it required experience of seven years as District Judge - State Government issued Notification declaring that appellant did not fulfill the criteria of the Amendment Act and, therefore, incurred disability to hold the office as a Member of the Commission - Validity of Notification challenged - Held: An employee appointed for a fixed period under a statute is entitled to continue till the expiry of the tenure - Moreover, s. 26 specifically provided that neither the salary and allowances nor other terms and conditions of service of a Member shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment - As the appellant was fully eligible and competent to be appointed under the Act of 1993 and he was duly appointed and worked for about 2 years including the period after the commencement of the Amendment Act 2006, the declaration that he ceased to hold the post as a Member of the Commission, was in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions contained in s.26 of the Act of 1993 itself - The Notification was, thus, patently illegal - However, the vacancies of the Members were already filled - Appellant had also not impleaded any person who had been appointed in his place as a Member of the Commission - In the light of that the public exchequer cannot be burdened with the liability to pay the salary of two persons against one sanctioned post. Therefore, appellant is not granted any other relief except the declaration in his favour that the impugned Notification is illegal - However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is awarded cost to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 236(a) - Costs.Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006: The amendment would apply prospectively, particularly in view of the fact that the Amendment Act 2006 does not expressly or by necessary implication gives retrospective effect to the Amendment Act - Prospective effect.UP. Higher Judicial Service Rules 1975: r.4 - Post of District Judge and Additional District Judge in the State of UP. is neither inter-changeable nor inter-transferable. Service law: Appointment - Tenure appointment - Held: An employee appointed for a fixed period under the Statute is entitled to continue till the expiry of the tenure and in such a case there can be no occasion to pass the order of superannuation for the reason that the tenure comes to an end automatically by afflux of time. Repeal: Accrued rights cannot be taken away by repealing the statutory provisions arbitrarily. Party: Necessary party - lmpleadment of - Held: No order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting him and such an order if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice - The principles enshrined in the proviso to Order I Rule 9, CPC provide that impleadment of a necessary party is mandatory and in case of non-joinder of necessary party, the plaintiff/ petitioner may not be entitled for the relief sought by him - In service jurisprudence, if an unsuccessful candidate challenges the selection process, he is bound to implead at least some of the successful candidates in representative capacity - In case the services of a person is terminated and another person is appointed at his place, in order to get relief, the person appointed at his place is the necessary party for the reason that even if the plaintiff/petitioner succeeds, it may not be possible for the Court to issue direction to accommodate the petitioner without removing the person who filled up the post manned by plaintiff/petitioner - Service law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 1 r. 9.Words and phrases: cadre, 'Tenure', 'Justifiable grounds', 'vest' - Meaning of
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 311
Petitioner	J.s. Yadav
Respondent	State Of U.p. & Anr.
SCR	[2011] 5 S.C.R. 460
Judgement Date	2011-04-18
Case Number	3299

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

J.s. Yadav Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of U.p. and Ors. Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Anr.

Ishwari Lal Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

G. Manikyamma & Others Vs. Roudri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Others

Rajesh Yadav & Anr Vs. State of U.p.

Kam Lesh Aggarwal Vs. Narain Singh Dabbas &anr.

Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.p. & Anr

State of U.p. Vs. Jai Dutt and Anr.

Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of U.p.

J.s. Yadav Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

J.s. Yadav Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of U.p. and Ors. Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Anr.

Ishwari Lal Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

G. Manikyamma & Others Vs. Roudri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Others

Rajesh Yadav & Anr Vs. State of U.p.

Kam Lesh Aggarwal Vs. Narain Singh Dabbas &anr.

Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.p. & Anr

State of U.p. Vs. Jai Dutt and Anr.

Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of U.p.

J.s. Yadav Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.