| As in several other areas, it has become the lot of the Supreme Court to clean the Aegean stables. Two such orders were passed in the last fortnight. |
| The first was .EB [UP State Electricity Board]. Six years ago, the court had set up a high powered committee to investigate the lack of transparency in transfers and postings of staff in the UPSEB. |
| The findings of the committee were a severe indictment of the government and the board. |
| The court, after reading the report, remarked: "The state government has power under the Electricity Act to issue directives in the nature of policy directives, but with the board's chairman and top executive heads packed by political bosses, the state government appears to be exercising unbridled power of interference in the day-to-day working of the electricity board. This interference in transfers and postings with political patronage has totally destroyed the autonomous nature of the electricity board." |
| The committee said that the board was acting as an extension of the government. Politicians have not regarded the board as a commercial enterprise. |
| Although the board is an independent entity on paper, its management serves at the pleasure of the government which changes frequently. |
| Although the board has now been split into UP Power Corporation Ltd with five subsidiary distribution companies, there is still the hangover of the past. |
| Therefore, the court laid down a five-point scheme to prevent political interference in the corporation. According to it, no minister or any government officer shall interfere with the transfers and postings of officers of any of the corporation and its subsidiaries. |
| An independent committee nominated by the court will monitor all postings and transfers. All proposals for transfers and postings shall be placed before the committee for its approval. |
| All these may look like judicial excesses in the field of administration, but these should be read as the sign of the times. |
| The second case which dealt with broadly the same problem is Food Corporation of India vs Bhanu Lodh. The Food Corporations Act [FCI Act] of 1964 deals with the management and appointment of officers of the corporation. |
| Section 6(2) says that the board of directors of the corporation shall act on "business principles" and shall be guided by such instructions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the Central government. |
| Trouble arose when the corporation advertised for direct recruitment of joint managers and deputy managers. While the recruiting process was going on, a number of complaints were received by the government with regard to the manner in which it was done. |
| Age restrictions were flouted, for instance. The vigilance director reported several other irregularities and anomalies. |
| Following this, the government imposed a complete ban on the process and cancelled all recruitments. This led to litigation in several high courts. |
| The crucial question was whether the government has any authority to interfere with the internal administration of the corporation, particularly with regard to the internal management, appointment and service of its staff. |
| The Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed the petition challenging the government circular. The Guwahati High Court, on the other hand, shot down the circular. |
| It invoked Section 6(2) of the FCI Act and emphasised that since the corporation has to be run on business principles, the Central government has no power to issue the directive to cancel the recruitment. |
| The appeals came to the Supreme Court. It ruled that the policy of recruitment of officers was also included in the expression "business principles". |
| Thus, the government action was wrong. Although the results of the two judgements went in different ways, both highlighted the virus of corruption in public employment. |
Top Section
Explore Business Standard