Back
Appointments Cannot Be Cancelled By Merely On Direction Of State Govt:
In a significant ruling reinforcing the independence of appointing authorities, the has set aside the termination of 50 Assistant Managers of the , holding that their services could not be cancelled merely on the by the .
Justice Rajeev Singh, presiding over a single-judge bench at the , quashed the dated , along with the preceding government directions and board resolutions that led to the dismissals. The court directed that the petitioners be allowed to , with the intervening period treated as "."
The Recruitment Process and Subsequent Challenge
The case traces back to an advertisement issued on , by the for the post of Assistant Manager in the U.P. Cooperative Bank. The initial eligibility criteria required a graduate degree in Commerce, Economics, Mathematics, or Statistics with at least 50% marks, or an MBA/PGDM in Banking and Finance.
However, before the last date for submission of applications, the
, in a meeting on
, resolved to widen the qualification to
"Graduate in any discipline with 50% marks."
This change was approved by the
, who was empowered under Section 120 of the
read with Regulation 7 of the
. A corrigendum was published on , and the last date for applications was extended.
The petitioners applied, cleared the written examination, and were declared successful on . They joined service in , with their appointment letters expressly made filed by unsuccessful candidates, including Jyoti Shukla v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 6003 (S/S) of 2015).
The Inquiry and Government Directive
In , on a complaint by an NGO named , the government ordered an inquiry into the recruitment. The inquiry report, submitted on , alleged that the qualification had been reduced through a involving then Managing Director Mr. Ravikant Singh and others, and that appointment letters had been issued in undue haste after an in the pending writ petition was not extended.
Based on this report, the , Mr. M.V.S. Rami Reddy, issued a letter on , directing the cancellation of the appointments of all 50 Assistant Managers. A follow-up letter on , reiterated this direction and instructed the Bank to file in the High Court. The , in a meeting on , resolved to terminate the services of the petitioners with . The were issued on .
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioners, represented by , argued that the termination was based solely on the directive of the Principal Secretary, without any by the . They highlighted that the change in qualification was made by the Registrar-cum-Commissioner, who was legally empowered to do so, and no or had been brought against the petitioners themselves. They relied on the judgment in , where it was held that an employee cannot be terminated merely on the recommendation of a higher authority.
The respondents, including the State, the Bank, and the , contended that the entire selection process was by . They pointed to the criminal investigation which allegedly revealed that relatives of the then Chairman and other officials were among the selected candidates, and that interpolation in OMR sheets had been detected. However, they conceded that no had been filed against any of the petitioners.
Court's Analysis and Key Observations
Justice Rajeev Singh meticulously examined the chain of correspondence leading to the termination. He observed that the
were
"passed by the
only on the direction of the Principal Secretary of the concerned department."
The court noted that the Board of Directors and the Managing Director merely acted on the government's dictate without any independent consideration.
"
,"
the court remarked, emphasizing that nothing adverse was alleged against the individuals whose services were terminated.
The court further observed that the qualification had been altered by the Registrar-cum-Commissioner, who was competent under the Act, and the selection process had been completed accordingly. The interim order in the earlier writ petition was not extended on , and the writ petition itself was ultimately dismissed on , as the petitioner had participated in the process and failed.
Relying on , the court held that an authority cannot terminate an employee solely on the basis of a superior's recommendation without applying its own mind. The resolution passed by the Managing Committee and the subsequent formal order by the Managing Director showed no independent assessment.
The Decision
The High Court allowed both , setting aside the dated , as well as the preceding government letters of , and , the Board's resolution of , and the 's letter of . The court directed that the petitioners be and permitted to as they were prior to the termination. However, the period from the date of termination till the date of judgment shall be treated as "."
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder that appointing authorities must exercise their own discretion and cannot blindly follow government directives, especially when the individuals whose services are terminated have not been personally found guilty of any misconduct.
