2007 Supreme(SC) 205

2007(3) Supreme 251
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gauhati High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
State of Manipur & Ors.—Appellants
versus
Y. Token Singh & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 849 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19110-19112 of 2005)
With
Civil Appeal No. 850 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19375-19376 of 2005)
Decided on 20-2-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : S.B. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Aribam Guneshwar Sharma, S.K. Bhattacharya, L.K. Paonam and H.S. Paonam, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with for cancellation of appointments which were made by an authority incompetent to issue the appointment letters.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Appointments—Cancellation of appointments made on temporary basis without knowledge of Administrative Department—Principles of natural justice not required to be complied with—State of Manipur had not framed any recruitment rules for appointment in Revenue Department—Commissioner of Revenue Department was conferred with a power of being the cadre controlling authority for non ministerial post of the Revenue Department—He allegedly made certain appointments which was not within the knowledge of the State—No record in regard to the said recruitments was maintained—On enquiry, the Commissioner denied to have made such an appointment—Therefore, offers of appointment issued in favour of respondents were cancelled—Writ petitions filed challenging cancellation of appointments made—Whether appointments made without the knowledge of the Revenue Department of the State were valid—(No)—Whether in such cases for cancellation of such appointments it was necessary to comply with principles of natural justice—(No).

       Held : The State while offering appointments, having regard to the constitutional scheme adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, must comply with its constitutional duty, subject to just and proper exceptions, to give an opportunity of being considered for appointment to all persons eligible therefor.(Para 13)

       The posts of field staffs of the Revenue Department of the State of Manipur were, thus, required to be filled up having regard to the said constitutional scheme. We would proceed on the assumption that the State had not framed any recruitment rules in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India but the same by itself would not clothe the Commissioner of Revenue to make recruitments in violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.(Para 14)

       The offers of appointment issued in favour of the respondents herein were cancelled inter alia on the premise that the same had been done without the knowledge of the Revenue Department of the State. No records therefor were available with the State. As noticed hereinbefore, an inquiry had been made wherein the said Shri Tayeng, the then Commissioner of Revenue stated that no such appointment had been made to his knowledge. The State proceeded on the said basis. The offers of appointment were cancelled not on the ground that some irregularities had been committed in the process of recruitment but on the ground that they had been non-est in the eye of law. The purported appointment letters were fake ones. They were not issued by any authority competent therefor.(Para 15)

       If the offers of appointments issued in favour of the respondents herein were forged documents, the State could not have been compelled to pay salaries to them from the State exchequer. Any action, which had not been taken by an authority competent therefor and in complete violation of the constitutional and legal framework, would not be binding on the State. In any event, having regard to the fact that the said authority himself had denied to have issued a letter, there was no reason for the State not to act pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof. The action of the State did not, thus, lack bona fide.(Para 16)

       The respondents, therefore, in our opinion, were not entitled to hold the posts. In a case of this nature, where the facts are admitted, the principles of natural justice were not required to be complied with, particularly when the same would result in futility. It is true that where appointments had been made by a competent authority or at least some steps have been taken in that behalf, the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with.(Para 21)

       We in the facts and circumstances of this case do not see any arbitrariness on the part of the State in its action directing cancellation of appointments.(Para 24)