important point
Merely because mistake had been committed in one case, it cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.

judgment

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant-State and its functionaries.

3.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

One Miss Suraj Mani Khalko, a few days before her retirement made many appointments to the posts of Class III and Class IV employees without following the procedure of appointment stipulated by instruction dated 3.12.1980. No records were available in the office for such appointments, namely, advertisement, requisition to employment exchange, committee for preparing panel to be chaired by District Magistrate, with District Welfare Officer and three officers of different district levels. According to the respondent advertisement was issued for Class III and Class IV employees on 4.6.1993 and on 12.7.1993 interview letters were issued. According to the appellants all these were signed by Miss Suraj Mani Khalko and were fabricated and forged documents and were never issued by the department which is manifest from the dispatch register. On 16.9.1993 the appointment letter was purportedly issued and the respondent claimed to have joined on 21.9.1993, but he was not paid his salary. A few days thereafter i.e. on 15.10.1993 illegal appointments made by Miss Suraj Mani Khalko were cancelled by the Government. The respondent filed a writ petition in the year 1995 before the Jharkhand High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 28.8.1995 with the direction to the respondent to file fresh representation with all materials i.e. letter of appointment etc. before the authority. Direction was also given to make payment of admitted dues since 21.9.1993 till date. The respondent did not file any representation as was directed by the High Court. On the basis of the direction given by the High Court in CWJC No.3878/1995, Deputy Commissioner was appointed to make an inquiry. By report dated 10.4.1997, the Deputy Commissioner found all the appointments to be illegal. By order dated 22.4.1997 the services of respondent, Sri Sanjay Kumar and three others were terminated by the District Education Officer. Respondent filed CWJC No.829/1998. Several terminated employees filed writ petitions which were dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the appointments were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short ‘the Constitution’) as they had been made without following the requisite procedure. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent on the ground that Sanjay Kumar had been appointed pursuant to the order passed by the High Court. The Letters Patent Appeal filed as aforesaid was dismissed.

4.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on the basis of the norms fixed for appointment, due procedure was not followed. Merely because somebody else had granted appointment, that cannot be a ground to claim that wrong should be perpetuated. On the basis of the norms fixed by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 3.12.1980, specific modalities were required to be followed. It is to be noted that in Sanjay Kumar’s case LPA was dismissed on the ground of delay and, therefore, was not a precedent to be followed. Reference is made to the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors.,1 (2006 (4) SCC 1) to contend that the learned Single Judge could not have passed the order for regularization.

5.In response, learned counsel for the respondent stated that it is not a case of regularisation. There was an advertisement, there was a vacancy, panel of selection was duly constituted and, therefore, no interference is called for.

6.In the instant case, the norms have been fixed not by any Rule but by administrative instructions. As noted above, stand of the appellant is that respondent was not sponsored by the employment exchange.