1996 Supreme(SC) 983

1996(4) Supreme 473
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Tagin Litin -Appellant
versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8247 of 1996
with
Civil Appeal No. 8248 of 1996
Both decided on 10-5-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
In order to be effective, an order passed by the State or its functionaries must be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order and until the order is so communicated the said order is only provisional in character and it would be open to the concerned authority to reconsider the matter and alter or rescind the order.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945-Clause 5(1)-Head Gaonburah-Appointment-Deputy Commissioner passed an order approving appointment of petitioner as Head Gaonburah-WT message sent to Additional Deputy Commissioner to inform petitioner about approval of his appointment-No formal order for appointment communicated to petitioner-Whether petitioner should be treated as Head Gaonburah by virtue of WT message ?-(No)-Unless the order is communicated to the person concerned the said order is only provisional in character-It would be open to the authority to reconsider the matter and alter or rescind the order.

       Held : It is settled law that, in order to be effective, an order passed by the State or its functionaries must be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order and until the order is so communicated the said order is only provisional in character and it would be open to the concerned authority to reconsider the matter and alter or rescind. (Para 8)

       An appointment to a post or office postulates :

        (a) a decision by the competent authority to appoint a particular person;

        (b) incorporation of the said decision in an order of appointment; and

        (c) communication of the order of appointment to the person who is being appointed.

       All the three requirements must be fulfilled for an appointment to be effective. (Para 9)

       Further held : In the instant case the Deputy Commissioner, who was the competent authority under the Regulation, had passed an order on January 31, 1994 approving the appointment of the petitioner and Shri Atteng Sitek as Head Gaonburah and Second Head Gaonburah of Simong village and had directed that appointment order be issued. Thereafter the WT message dated Fabruary 15, 1994 was sent to the Additional Deputy Commissioner to inform the petitioner and Shri Atteng Sitek about the approval of their appointment as Head Gaonburah and Second Head Gaonburah of Simong village from January 31, 1994. WT message dated March 8, 1994, which was subsequently sent from the office of the Deputy Commissioner to the Additional Deputy Commissioner records that no formal order for appointment of the petitioner and Shri Atteng Sitek had been issued from the office since no such order was issued earlier in other cases also and that the only correspondence regarding the same was the WT message dated February 15, 1994 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner to the Additional Deputy Commissioner. In view of the said statement in WT message dated March 8, 1994, the WT message dated February 15, 1994 has to be treated as the order regarding appointment of the petitioner as Head Gaonburah of Simong village. Conditions (a) and (b) aforementioned for appointment on a post or office were, therefore, satisfied in the present case. The only question is whether condition (c) had been satisfied before the passing of the order dated April 19, 1994 whereby Tagin Litin was appointed as Head Gaonburah and the petitioner was appointed as Second Head Gaonburah of Simong village. In this context, it may be stated that by the WT message dated March 8, 1994 it was directed that the appointment of the petitioner and Shri Atteng Sitek as per WT message dated February 15, 1994 "be kept in abeyance for the time being." (Para 10)

       In these circumstances it must be held that prior to the issuance of the order dated April 19, 1994, there was no communication of the order dated February 15, 1994 to the petitioner with regard to his appointment as Head Gaonburah of Simong village. In the absence of any such communication, the said order of appointment had not come into effect and the order dated April 19, 1994, whereby Tagin Litin was appointed as Head Gaonburah and the petitioner was appointed as Second Head Gaonburah cannot be regarded as an order for removal of the petitioner as Head Gaonburah. (Para 11)