IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.K. TAHILRAMANI, SHALINI PHANSALKAR JOSHI, JJ.
Rajubhai Ramabhai Bhusara - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, & Others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 6372 of 2017
Decided On : 08-08-2017
Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965-Rule 5-Constitution of India, Article 14-Termination of temporary appointee.-Requirement of notice of one month or opportunity of hearing before termination of temporary appointee, is not necessary.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Principles of natural justice.-Since appointment of a temporary appointee was neither valid nor legal hence his termination without issuing notice not violates principles of natural justice.
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.
3. By way of present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 24th April 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, in Original Application No.838 of 2016. The said application was preferred by the Petitioner for a declaration that he has been validly appointed to the post of ‘Police Sub-Inspector’ vide appointment order dated 16th August 2016 and Respondent No.2 has no legal right or authority to cancel the said appointment, without following the prescribed procedure of law. As the said application came to be dismissed, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Facts, which are necessary for deciding this Petition, can be stated as follows:-
Petitioner belongs to ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category and is resident of Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Initially, he was appointed as ‘Police Constable' in the Police Department of U.T. Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli by order dated 1st June 2011. In response to the advertisement issued by Respondent No.2 on 14th March 2016 for filling up the post of ‘Police Sub-Inspector (Male)’, from open market for direct recruitment for the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Petitioner applied for the said post. In all, 6 posts were notified by the said advertisement; out of them, 4 posts were for the candidates from ‘Open’ category; 1 post was for candidate belonging to ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category and 1 post was reserved for candidate belonging to ‘Scheduled Caste’ category. Since the Petitioner fulfilled eligibility criteria, he applied for the said post.
5. After successfully undergoing the physical endurance test, followed by written test, name of the Petitioner was included in the list of provisionally selected candidates for the post of ‘Police Sub- Inspector’ on 29th July 2016 on the official website of Respondent No.2. His name was included in the category of the candidates belonging to ‘Scheduled Tribe’. Thereupon, after due verification of the documents submitted by him on 6th August 2016, the letter of offer of appointment was issued to him on 8th August 2016, by which he was offered temporary appointment to the post of 'Police Sub- Inspector'. Petitioner accepted the said offer of appointment by his letter dated 10th August 2016 and tendered his technical resignation on 10th August 2016 from the post of ‘Police Constable’ for the purpose of joining the post of ‘Police Sub-Inspector’. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued an order dated 12th August 2016 appointing Petitioner to the post of ‘Police Sub-Inspector’ w.e.f. 16th August 2016. Petitioner was put on probation for two years from the date of joining. His technical resignation from the post of ‘Police Constable’ was accepted on 16th August 2016 and on the same day, Petitioner joined the post of ‘Police Sub-Inspector’. Initially, Petitioner was imparted basic training at Silvassa for two months and thereafter he was directed to join the Police Training College at New Delhi. Accordingly, he joined the said College from 14th October 2016. As per the case of the Petitioner, from the date of his appointment as ‘Police Sub-Inspector’ on 16th August 2016, he was being paid salary for the said post.
6. However, all of a sudden, on 13th December 2016, the Petitioner was handed over the order of the same date informing him that, as upon the detailed cross-verification of documents of all the candidates in the merit-list, an anomaly in caste category, as reflected in the list, was detected, hence, the revised merit-list was prepared. As per the said list, the seat belonging to ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category was to be allotted to the candidate belonging to the said ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category, who has secured highest marks in the merit-list. It was informed that, as Petitioner has not secured highest mark
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.