2007(8) Supreme 653
Supreme Court of india
(From Jharkhand High Court)
B.N. Agrawal & Tarun Chatterjee & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Nagendra Chandra Etc. Etc. — Petitioners
versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 5460-5465 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18379-18384 of 2005]
Decided on : 28-11-2007
(2006) 4 SCC 1 – Relied upon.
(b)Bihar Police Manual – Rule 663 – The Rule requires notifying the vacancies in newspapers and to advertise the same through employment exchange – This having not been done, and the appointments made in infraction of the rules, there was flagrant breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Such appointments are liable to be cancelled – High Court was justified in terminating the services of such appointees. (Paras 7 to 9)
(1996) 7 SCC 577; (1997) 2 SCC 1; (2006) 5 SCC 493 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case:
1.The appellants along with several others were appointed as constables in the year 1990 pursuant to vacancies notified through notice displayed on the notice board in the Office of Zonal Inspector General, Ranchi.
2.Subsequently, when it transpired that the vacancies were neither advertised through the employment exchange nor in the newspapers, the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police directed that all such persons, including the appellants, be dismissed from service and consequentially they were dismissed.
3.Some of the constables filed writ petitions challenging the orders of their dismissal which were quashed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
4.Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions filed on behalf of the appellants.
Findings of the Court:
Appointments being violative of the rules and the Constitution cannot be upheld.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
judgment
B.N. Agrawal, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.The appellants along with several others were appointed as constables in the year 1990 pursuant to vacancies notified through notice displayed on the notice board in the Office of Zonal Inspector General, Ranchi. Subsequently, when it transpired that the vacancies were neither advertised through the employment exchange nor in the newspapers, the Director General cum Inspector General of Police directed that all such persons, including the appellants, be dismissed from service and consequentially they were dismissed. Some of the constables filed writ petitions challenging the orders of their dismissal which were quashed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that the orders were passed without giving opportunity of hearing against which the State of Jharkhand filed letters patent appeals in the High Court. In the meantime, the appellants also challenged their orders of dismissal by filing separate writ petitions and their writ petitions and the letters patent appeals were heard together by a Division Bench and by the impugned order High Court allowed the letters patent appeals, set aside orders of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petitions filed on behalf of the appellants with this modification only that orders of dismissal from service should be treated as orders of termination. Hence these appeals by special leave.
3.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that though the vacancies were neither advertised through the employment exchange nor in any newspaper, as required under Rule 663(d) of the Bihar Police Manual, but as the same were displayed on the notice board, it cannot be said that there was infraction of the said Rule; as such the services of the appellants should not have been terminated, more so when they have continued in service for a period of fourteen years. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand submitted that as the appointments, being in infraction of Rule 663(d), were illegal, the competent authority was quite justified in terminating services of the appellants.
4.In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors., vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors.1, (2006) 4 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench of this Court laid down that any appointment made in violation of recruitment rules would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Constitution’] rendering the same nullity, as such even if the appointee has continued in service for a long period, he cannot be further allowed to continue in service but if, however, it was found that the appointment was not illegal but irregular, in that eventuality he could be permitted to continue in service and the same could be regularized in case he had worked for ten years or more on duly sanctioned post.
5.Thus, the question that falls for our consideration is as to whether the appointments of the appellants being in infraction of Rule 663(d) of the Bihar Police Manual were irregular or illegal.
6.Rule 663 of the Bihar Police Manual runs thus :
“Selection of recruits.- (a) Strong, healthy, young men between the ages of 19 and 27 years and who have passed secondary (i.e., Matriculation) examination shall be selected as recruits, as far as possible. The standard of physical tests shall be same as given in Appendix 38, clause 9 for Sub-Inspectors. For scheduled castes and tribes, the upper age-limit is up to 32 years and educational qualification can be reduced to middle pass if matriculates are not available. The standards of height and chest measurements are given below. These are the minima and Superintendents should endeavour to get men of higher standard:
(i)for general height 163 centimetres and chest 80 centimetres.
(ii)for scheduled caste and tribe height 158 centimetres and chest 78 centimetres.
Note. In measuring the chest, the measuring tape must be applied evenly but not tightly, its upper ed
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.