SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 233

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Union of India & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Raghuwar Pal Singh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1636 of 2012
Decided On : 13-03-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment by an officer not competent to do so and not obtaining prior approval of competent authority as required would be an illegality and hence nullity.

Headnote:Service law – Dismissal – Respondent appointed by an officer not competent to do so – Not obtaining prior approval of competent authority as required – Constituting a one member selection committee and himself becoming Chairman of the Committee – Held, appointment was an illegality and hence nullity – Respondent rightly terminated – High Court wrongly holding termination bad for not affording opportunity to respondent – Being illegal appointee respondent was not entitled to any opportunity. (Para 16, 17, 18, 28)

       (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 100; (2002) 4 SCC 503; (2007) 5 SCC 65; (1999) 6 SCC 237; (1997) 2 SCC 712 – Relied upon

       (1994) 2 SCC 204; (1988) 2 RLW 428 – Referred

       (1993) 3 SCC 259; (1968) 1 SCR 164; (1995) 5 SCC 159; AIR (1917) PC 142 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       the respondent was appointed to the post of Veterinary Compounder in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying by one H.S. Rathore, the then Agriculture Officer, Central Cattle Breeding Farms (CCBF), Suratgarh, who was purportedly authorised only to look after the current duties of the post of Director. The appointment was made in November 1999 on a provisional and temporary basis, pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspaper on 15.10.1999. However, by an office order dated 29th August, 2000 issued under the signature of Dr. M.N. Haque, Director, the services of respondent came to be terminated.

       The respondent assailed the said order by filing Original Application No.206 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench at Jodhpur, inter alia, on the ground that the appointment was made by the Board of Officers after they had duly considered the matter and who were competent to issue offer of appointment to the respondent. Further, if there was any irregularity in the appointment process, that could have been enquired into by the department, but without taking recourse to any inquiry, the impugned termination order had been issued. Such action was violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. According to the respondent, his appointment was made after following all the formalities by the department in a fair and transparent manner. He asserted that the department was therefore, estopped from terminating his services. Further, the impugned order is not a termination simpliciter but would cause prejudice to the respondent. It is a stigmatic order indicating that the appointment of the respondent was illegal, for which reason also, principles of natural justice ought to have been adhered to by the department.

       The Tribunal, after analysing the relevant contentions of both sides, opined that there was no infirmity in the termination order passed against the concerned applicant including the respondent herein.

       The Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment and order dated April 23, 2010, upheld the argument of the respondent that the Office Order dated 29.08.2000 merely records one fact that the appointment of the respondent was made without approval of the competent authority. In such a case, the services of respondent could be terminated only after giving him opportunity of hearing.

       Finding of the Court:

       Respondent was rightly terminated.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. The central questions posed in this appeal are:

(i) whether the appointment of the respondent to the post of Veterinary Compounder, made by the Director Incharge at the relevant point of time without approval of the Competent Authority, was a nullity or a mere irregularity, which could be glossed over by the department to avert disruption of his services and;

(ii) in any case, whether his services could be disrupted without giving him an opportunity of hearing.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent was appointed to the post of Veterinary Compounder in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying by one H.S. Rathore, the then Agriculture Officer, Central Cattle Breeding Farms (CCBF), Suratgarh, who was purportedly authorised only to look after the current duties of the post of Director. The appointment was made in November 1999 on a provisional and temporary basis, pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspaper on 15.10.1999. However, by an office order dated 29th August, 2000 issued under the signature of Dr. M.N. Haque, Director, the services of respondent came to be terminated. The said order reads thus:

“Government of India

Ministry of Agriculture

Department of All & Dairying

……….Cattle Breeding Farm

SURATGARH – 335 804 (Raj.)

Dated the 29thAugust, 2000.

OFFICE ORDER

In compliance to Ministry’s decision vide their letter No.8-6/99-Admn.III dated 18thAugust, 2000, illegal appointment, of Shri Raghuwar Pal Singh S/o Shri Himat Singh Shekhawat to the post of Veterinary Compounder, made by the then Director Incharge Shri H.S. Rathore, agriculture Officer, without approval of the Competent Authority, vide this office order No. 14-62/99-CPS/1562 dated 24/30 November, 1999, is CANCELLED with immediate effect. Accordingly, his service stands terminated as per terms and conditions laid down in point v) & vi) of the offer of appointment letter no.5-17/96-99/CPS/1308 dated 16/22 November, 1999.

(Dr. M.N. Haque)

DIRECTOR.” (emphasis supplied)

3. The respondent assailed the said order by filing Original Application No.206 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench at Jodhpur, inter alia, on the ground that the appointment was made by the Board of Officers after they had duly considered the matter and who were competent to issue offer of appointment to the respondent. Further, if there was any irregularity in the appointment process, that could have been enquired into by the department, but without taking recourse to any inquiry, the impugned termination order had been issued. Such action was violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. According to the respondent, his appointment was made after following all the formalities by the department in a fair and transparent manner. He asserted that the department was therefore, estopped from terminating his services. Further, the impugned order is not a termination simpliciter but would cause prejudice to the respondent. It is a stigmatic order indicating that the appointment of the respondent was illegal, for which reason also, principles of natural justice ought to have been adhered to by the department.

4. The appellants resisted the said Original Application, by filing a detailed affidavit. According to the appellants, the respondent had not approached the Court with clean hands. In that, he has mentioned the numbers of the relevant documents, which pertain to some other case and not his order of appointment or termination. On merits, it was asserted by the appellants that the appointment of the respondent to the post of Veterinary Compounder was not as per the law. It was made by the then Director Incharge H.S. Rathore, Agriculture Officer and without approval of the competent authority. On the date of issuing the appointment letter, Shri H.S. Rathore had no authority to do so. It was asserted by the appellants that pursuant to advertisement dated 15.10.1999, appointment could be made only in conformity with the relevant Recru






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top