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

2019 Supreme(SC) 1158

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
The State of Bihar and Others – Appellants
Versus
Devendra Sharma – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7611, 7879, 7880, 7881, 7882, 7883, 7884, 7885, 7886, 7887, 7888, 7889, 7890, 7891, 7892, 7893-7900, 7901, 7902-7903, 7904, 7905, 7906, 7907, 7908, 7909, 7910, 7911-7913, 7914, 7915-7916, 7917, 7918, 7919, 7920, 7921, 7922, 7923, 7924, 7925, 7926, 7927, 7928, 7929, 7930, 7931, 7932, 7933, 7934, 7935 of 2019, SLP (Civil) Nos. 11885, 20033, 20036, 20038, 24749, 24753 of 2012, 152, 157, 2042, 2191, 2192, 2193, 22300, 28306, 29303-29310, 29399, 29940-29941, 30704, 31218, 32024, 32033, 33708, 34667, 34668, 34818-34820, 35375, 36755 of 2014, 923-924, 10397, 11366, 14694, 18197, 2573, 2755, 31452, 3280, 3306, 5983, 7560, 7562, 7568, 7571, 7574, 7577 of 2015, 9534, 36406 of 2016, 24371 of 2019, Diary No. 9625 of 2017
Decided On : 17-10-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Abhinav Mukerji, Pratishtha Vij, Bihu Sharma, Samarth Khanna, Rajiv Kumar, Shailesh Madiyal, Sanjeev Gupta, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Manu Shanker Mishra, K. V. Mohan, Rajivkumar, Jamnesh Kumar, Abhay Prakash Sahay, Himanshu Shekhar, Binay Kumar Das, S.K. Verma, Mohit Kumar Shah, Bipin Kr. Jha, Mohd. Adeel Siddiqui, Neeraj Gupta, Ajay Kumar Talesara, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ajay Kumar Singh, Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, Gaurav Agrawal, Vipin Kumar Jai, Devashish Bharuka, Navin Prakash, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Himanshu Shekhar, Manu Shanker Mishra, Pahlad Singh Sharma, Ajay Kumar Singh, Gopal Singh, Gaurav Agrawal, Shikhil Suri, Shiv Kumar Suri, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Navin Prakash, Abhinav Mukerji, Smita Mukherjee, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Meenakshi Das, Binay Kumar Das, Kusum Chaudhary, N. Rai, Prerna Singh, Shantanu Sagar, Chandan Kumar, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Once it is found that very appointment is illegal and is non est in eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise.

Headnote:

Service law – Termination – Illegal appointments – Forged educational certificates – State Committee has examined all appointments and segregated appointments based on forged documents and also irregular appointments – Once the detailed report has been submitted examining merit of each candidate, no further discussion on arguments raised would survive – Tuberculosis eradication under 20-Point Programme was not an emergency activity which may empower Assistant Director to make large number of appointments – Such emergent powers could be exercised only in respect of sanctioned posts – Assistant Director was incompetent to make appointments against sanctioned posts except in emergent cases and so is Regional Deputy Director – Once it is found that very appointment is illegal and is non est in eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise – None of candidates in present set of appeals could point out that they were appointed in a manner meant for filling up of vacant post of public appointment – Such appointments were backdoor entries, an act of nepotism and favouritism and from any judicial standards cannot be said to be irregular appointments but are illegal appointments in wholly arbitrary process – Orders passed by High Court cannot be sustained in law and set aside – Appeals filed by State allowed and appeals filed by candidates against such order dismissed. (Paras 19, 22, 29, 32, 36, 38, 44, 45 and 46)

Facts of the case:

Large number of candidates were appointed against Class III or Class IV posts in Health Department in Government of Bihar till 1990 or so. Services of such employees were terminated which led to number of writ petitions before High Court. Issue in appeals is common arising out of same or similar facts.

Findings of Court:

Appointments were made without any sanctioned post, without any advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and seek public employment and without any method of recruitment. Such appointments were backdoor entries, an act of nepotism and favouritism and thus from any judicial standards cannot be said to be irregular appointments but are illegal appointments in wholly arbitrary process.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of two sets of appeals, one by the State arising out of an order dated July 12, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (for short ‘High Court’) whereby, the appeals filed by the State were dismissed directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on October 6, 2009 and another set of appeals arising out of an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on September 24, 2014 whereby the order passed by the learned single Bench on October 6, 2009 was set aside. Some other Appeals are also on board against the orders passed by the High Court on other dates.

2. Since the issue in the appeals is common arising out of same or similar facts, therefore, such appeals have been taken up for hearing together.

3. Brief facts leading to the present appeals are that large number of candidates were appointed against Class III or Class IV posts in the Health Department in Government of Bihar till 1990 or so. The services of such employees were terminated which led to number of writ petitions before the High Court. The first round of cases came to end with the order of three Judge Bench of this Court reported as Ashwani Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 1. This Court held that recruitments made by Dr. Mallick were arbitrary, capricious, null and void after considering the Government order dated December 3, 1980 as well as Government resolution dated March 25, 1983. It was also held that none of the appointees have any accrued right in the absence of sanctioned posts. It was held that the whole exercise remained in the realm of an unauthorised adventure. Nothing could come out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Zero multiplied by zero remains zero. It was held that army of employees under the Scheme had got to be cleared lock, stock and barrel so that public confidence in Government administration would not get shattered and arbitrary actions would not get sanctified.

4. It is thereafter in another round, the Division Bench of the High Court in State of Bihar and Others vs. Purendra Sulan Kit and Others, 2006 SCC Online Pat 290 decided approximately 819 Letters Patent Appeals and the writ petitions. The High Court noticed that the entry to Class III and Class IV posts in the health department during the same period were through back door method and, in many cases, through forged and fabricated letters of appointment or through transfer orders without actual appointments and, in some cases, appointments were made without availability of sanctioned posts made by the authority not competent to appoint. The High Court directed the Department of Health in the Government of Bihar to scrutinize the cases of affected employees afresh on the basis of relevant materials and in view of the law declared by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The High Court held as under:

“10. All the Letters Patent Appeals whether preferred by the State or by affected employees and all the Writ Petitions preferred by the affected employees are hereby disposed of by this common judgment and order with a direction to the authorities of the Health Department, Government of Bihar to reconsider the cases of all the affected employees with a view to find out on the basis of relevant facts and law as settled by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra) as to which of such affected employees are fit for regularisation in terms of that judgment, particularly in terms of paragraph 44 of the judgment. Such exercise should be completed within a period of six months from today. If for any good reason, the time period is required to be extended then the respondent State must file an application for that purpose and seek extension from this Cour

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