2010 Supreme(Kar) 1244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
D. Mohan Kumari D/o. Deva Working as Staff Nurse At hassan Institute of Medical Sciences and others —Appellant
Vs.
Sate of Krnataka by its Principal Secretary to Govt. and Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences a Society —Respondent
AND
Usha Kumari D/o Sri. Maneya and others —Appellant
Vs.
Sate of Krnataka, Chief Sectetary to Govt. Department of Health and Family welfare and Mysore Medical College and Research institute —Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 27062-201, 27236-334 and 27405-27572 of 2010
Decided on : 21-10-2010

The principles of natural justice, including the audi alteram partem rule, require that a person affected by a decision must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the decision is made.

Headnote:

WRIT PETITION - SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF PARAMEDICAL STAFF - HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (HIMS) AND MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (MMCRI) - SELECTION PROCESS - CANCELLATION OF SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE - REQUIREMENT OF GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD - INTERFERENCE BY STATE GOVERNMENT - POWER UNDER RULE 11 OF HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES RULES AND REGULATIONS, 2005 - APPLICABILITY - EXCESS APPOINTMENTS - LEGALITY - DIRECTIONS ISSUED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, appointed as paramedical staff in HIMS and MMCRI, challenged the orders of cancellation of their selection and appointments, as well as the orders relieving them from duty. The State defended its actions by citing widespread infirmities in the selection process, including the allocation of excessive marks for the interview, the granting of grace marks, and the ratio of candidates called for the interview. The State also relied on its power under Rule 11 of the HIMS Rules to issue directions in matters of academic and administrative nature.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the State's actions were vitiated by the violation of the principles of natural justice, as the Petitioners were not given an opportunity to be heard before the cancellation of their selection and appointments. The Court found that the State's reliance on the subsequent enquiry report to justify its actions was misplaced, as the report was not available at the time the impugned orders were passed. The Court also held that the State's interference in the recruitment process under Rule 11 was not justified, as the rule did not empower the State to annul the recruitment process. However, the Court upheld the cancellation of appointments of staff nurses in MMCRI that were in excess of the notified vacancies.

Issues: 1. Whether the State's cancellation of the Petitioners' selection and appointments violated the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the State's reliance on the subsequent enquiry report to justify its actions was valid? 3. Whether the State's interference in the recruitment process under Rule 11 was justified? 4. Whether the excess appointments in MMCRI were legal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State's actions violated the principles of natural justice, as the Petitioners were not given an opportunity to be heard before the cancellation of their selection and appointments. The Court relied on the principle of audi alteram partem, which requires that a person affected by a decision must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the decision is made. 2. The Court held that the State's reliance on the subsequent enquiry report to justify its actions was misplaced, as the report was not available at the time the impugned orders were passed. The Court stated that public orders cannot be construed in light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order. 3. The Court held that the State's interference in the recruitment process under Rule 11 was not justified, as the rule did not empower the State to annul the recruitment process. The Court found that the rule only empowered the State to issue directions in matters of academic and administrative nature, and did not give the State the authority to cancel the Petitioners' selection and appointments. 4. The Court upheld the cancellation of appointments of staff nurses in MMCRI that were in excess of the notified vacancies. The Court held that the excess appointments were illegal and violated the constitutional right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions in part. It quashed the orders cancelling the Petitioners' selection and appointments, except for the excess appointments in MMCRI. The Court directed the State to treat the impugned orders as show cause notices and to pass fresh orders after giving the Petitioners an opportunity to be heard.