The Hindu : National : Abolition of posts a matter of policy: court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Nov 01, 2007
ePaper

National

National

Abolition of posts a matter of policy: court

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: The power to create or abolish a post rests with the government and courts cannot interfere with such policy or administrative decisions, the Supreme Court held on Wednesday.

“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. Whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity,” said a Bench consisting of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P. Sathasivam.

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said, “Creation, continuance and abolition of posts are all decided by the government in the interest of administration and the general public. 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.”

The Bench said, “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.” The abolition must be done in good faith and it must not be a camouflage to weed out unwanted persons from service.

Termination challenged

The Haryana government terminated the services of Navneet Verma as accounts executive in the Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises following the abolition of the post.

He alleged that it was abolished for mala fide reasons. Both the single judge and a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed his petition and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits. Allowing Haryana’s appeal against this judgment, the Bench pointed out that the decision to abolish the posts of accounts executive was taken on an overall assessment of the workload and staff requirement, and it was finally approved by the government.

“The entire action was taken in good faith and there is no substantial material to arrive at the conclusion that the abolition of the post was due to revenge against the respondent,” the Bench said and set aside the High Court orders.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News Update

Stories in this Section