IMPORTANT POINT
When a Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, same can not be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegations of favouritism or bias and presumption arises in regard to correctness of official act.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Appointment or Recruitment—Power of review with appointing authority—It is only in a case where mistake is apparent on face of records, a rectification thereof is permissible—Respondent was selected for the post of Extra Development Delivery Agent and he joined the service—His appointment was reviewed and cancelled on ground that another applicant for the post had secured 348 marks in matriculation examination as against 248 marks secured by respondent—CAT dismissed respondent’s application—High Court allowed writ and directed appellant to allow respondent to resume his duties—Appeal—Respondent was recruited not only on basis of marks obtained in matriculation examination but upon consideration of various other criteria necessary therefor—Candidature of all candidates was considered on merits—No allegations of favouritism or bias—No fault could be found with Judgment of High Court.
       Held : The matter relating to appointment or recruitment of EDDA is not governed by any statute but by departmental instructions. It is now trite that if a mistake is committed in passing an administrative order, the same may be rectified. Rectification of a mistake, however, may in a given situation require compliance of the principles of natural justice. It is only in a case where the mistake is apparent on the face of the records, a rectification thereof is permissible without giving any hearing to the aggrieved party.(Paras 12)
       The respondent was recruited not only on the basis of marks obtained by him in the matriculation examination but also upon consideration of various other criteria necessary therefor. He filed all necessary and requisite documents. The candidature of all the candidates has been considered on their own merits. Only because one Pitamber Majhi had obtained higher marks in the matriculation examination, the same by itself should not have been a ground for cancelling the order of recruitment passed in favour of respondent.(Paras 13)
       When a Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, the same cannot be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegation of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in regard to the correctness of the Official Act. The party who makes any allegation of bias or favouritism is required to prove the same. In the instant case, no such allegation was made. The selection process was not found to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to our notice. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the said Pitamber Majhi by reason of higher marks obtained by him in the matriculation examination also cannot be said to be a better candidate than the respondent herein. In this view of the matter, we do not find any fault with the impugned judgment of the High Court.(Paras 14)
       The Division Bench of the High Court, in our considered view, correctly applied the law, which has been crystallized in a number of decisions of this Court. (Paras 15)

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 8819 of 1999.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Respondent Bikash Kuanars father was working as an Extra Development Delivery Agent (for short, EDDA) in Narangochha B.O. and, on his superannuation a vacancy arose in the said post. The respondent herein had applied for the said post. In the process of selection, the respondent was selected and posted vide order dated 2.7.1998. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent joined the service. The respondent, to his utter surprise and astonishment, on 2.1.1999 received a letter, wherein it was stated that the selection vis-a-vis the appointment of the respondent was reviewed and, thereafter, his appointment had been cancelled.

4. The respondent, aggrieved by the said order dated 2.1.1999, filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. A counter affidavit was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal. It was stated in the counter affidavit that an open advertisement was issued and in response to the same, the respondent herein and two other candidates, namely, Pitamber Majhi and Seshadeba had applied for the said post. One Pitamber Majhi secured 348 marks in the matriculation examination as against 298 marks secured by the respondent.

5. According to the appellants, both these candidates Pitamber Majhi and Seshadeba were wrongly rejected on wholly untenable grounds, therefore, the higher authority in the department had reviewed the case of the appointment of the respondent and opined that the appointment of the respondent to the said post was illegal and, consequently, cancelled the same. This, of course, was done after taking into consideration the representation of the respondent.

6. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the respondents application and thereafter the respondent preferred a writ petition before the High Court, which was decided by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa.

7. The Division Bench after hearing the counsel for the parties observed that the power of review is conferred by the statute. In case of an appointment made under the Rules framed for the purpose of appointment, such appointment could not be cancelled either by the same authority or higher authorities in exercise of power of administrative exigency.

8. The High Court in the impugned judgment also stated that the civil rights had already accrued to the respondent who rendered one and a half years of service. Once such civil rights had accrued, the authorities exercising their executive power cannot review the appointment.

9. The Division Bench held that the administrative instructions have no statutory force, therefore, these cannot be enforced and following such instructions, the respondents appointment could not be legally cancelled.

10. The Division Bench also directed that the respondent be given an opportunity to resume his duties within 30 days from the date of its order.

11. The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred a special leave petition before this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr. T. S. Doabia, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that once an irregular or unconstitutional appointment has been made, the higher authorities have the power to review the appointment. Moreover, the Department has issued OM No. 19-15/2002-GDS dated 9.5.2003 which empowers the superior authority to rectify the irregularity in such cases on its motion or otherwise. Mr. Doabia contended that the power to rectify any irregularity cannot be questioned. Mr. Doabia also contended that an employee who has been appointed irregularly cannot claim any right of recruitment. Nevertheless, the respondent was given a show-cause-notice under the rules before his appointment was terminated. He further submitted th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 934

IMPORTANT POINTWhen a Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, same can not be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegations of favouritism or bias and presumption arises in regard to correctness of official act.

IMPORTANT POINT
When a Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, same can not be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegations of favouritism or bias and presumption arises in regard to correctness of official act.