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

1989 Supreme(Pat) 133

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha and . JJ.
Udai Kumar Sharma
Versus
Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6689 of 1988 ;
Decided On : APRIL 6, 1989

An appointment made by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and does not confer any legal rights on the appointee.

Headnote:

ARTICLE 16 - APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNMENT SERVANTS - ARTICLE 14 - EQUALITY BEFORE LAW - ARTICLE 226 - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - APPOINTMENT OF RETRENCHED EMPLOYEE - VALIDITY OF APPOINTMENT - JURISDICTION OF APPOINTING AUTHORITY - RIGHT TO SALARY - NULLITY OF APPOINTMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, allegedly appointed as an Assistant on a temporary basis, was retrenched and later appointed again as an Assistant by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The petitioner claimed that he worked from 24th November 1978 but was not paid any salary. Despite representations and orders from higher authorities, the petitioner's appointment was not regularized.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a serious dispute regarding the petitioner's appointment and that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to support his claim of being a retrenched employee of the Co-operative Department. The court also held that the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, had no jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner and that the appointment was, therefore, a nullity.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was validly appointed as an Assistant by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to his salary despite the alleged nullity of his appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's appointment was a nullity as the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, had no jurisdiction to appoint him. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to his salary as he had not derived any legal right from the alleged appointment.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for a writ of mandamus, holding that he had no legal right to be enforced.

Judgment

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work as before as a clerk in the office of the Assistant Registrar, co-operative Societies, Danapur Circle, Danapur.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was allegedly appointed as an Assistant on the 19th December, 1977, on a temporary basis. He was subsequently retrenched. Thereafter, allegedly, vacancies for the posts of Assistant occurred and the petitioner allegedly held all the necessary qualifications and he applied therefor. The said application was forwarded by the respondent No.4 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner was allegedly thereafter appointed to work as an assistant by the Assistant registrar, Co-operatine Societies on the 23rd November, 1978, who also sought for approval from the higher authorities in respect of appointment of the petitioner a copy of the order dated the 23id November, 1976 which allegedly evidences appointment of the. petitioner is contained in Anoexurc 2 to the writ application. The petitioner joined the said post on the 24th November, 1978,the joining report being contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application.

3. According to the petitioner, the Joint Registrar, however, did not take any action with regard to the recommendation of the Assistant Registrar, Danapur circle, as contained in his letter dated the 23rd November, 1978 ( Annexure" 1 ). He wrote another letter to the Joint Registrar, on the 3rd January, 1979. A copy of the said letter is marked as Anr. exure-5, to the writ petition. A remainder was also sent on the 20th March, 1979, by a letter as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. According to the petitioner, on and from the 24th november, 1978, he had not been paid any salary whatsoever. In this situation, the petitioners wife submitted a representation to the Chief Minister on the 20th august, 1980, which is contained in Annexure 7 to the writ application. There after, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, allegedly asked for a report about the regularisation of the appointment of the petitioner The petitioner has alleged that despite the direction by the Chief Minisier, the officers of the Department were not taking any action and in such a situation the Minister in-charge of the Department upon the representation made to the Chief Minister by the petitioners wife, as mentioned hereinbefore, directed that the petitioner should be allowed to continue to work by an order dated the 3rd July, 1981, and as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application. It was further directed therein that the petitioner should be paid his salary from the 24th November, 1978, till date. According to the petitioner, even the said order was not complied with and thereafter a Committee consisting of the Registrar Co-optrative Societies, the joint Registrar and the Special Secretary of the Co-operative Department, was constituted which Committee examined the entire matter and submitted its report to the then Minister Incharge. In the said report, it was inter alia pointed out that the petitioner marked has attendance and, as such, the subsequent deletion of his attendances, from the attendence register was improper. In the said report it was also pointed out that the Joint Registrar of the Patna Division was guilty of not disposing of the said matter and keeping the same unnecessity pending. Thereafter, the Minister Incharge directed that the petitioners appointment with retrospective effect be considered. A copy of the report along with the order of the Minister is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application.

4. As the said matter still remained pending, the Minister Incharge again directed by an order dated the 21st April.1982, that his earlier order be complied with. In the said order, the Minister Incharge also expressed displeasure in















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