Back
1990 Supreme(Pat) 283
PATNA HIGH COURT
G.C.Bharuka, J.
Sakhichand Yadav
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5897 of 1989 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 03, 1990
Once a person is appointed in accordance with law, he acquires a substantive right on the post and his services cannot be terminated except on the grounds and in accordance with the procedure laid down in law, as also without compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - APPOINTMENT AND TERMINATION OF SERVICE - POLICE MANUAL RULES 661, 653, 666 - TERMINATION OF SERVICE OF CONSTABLE FOR WANT OF REQUISITE EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION - HELD, APPOINTMENT OF CONSTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES CONFERS SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE MUST BE ON GROUNDS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN LAW - RULE 666 PRESCRIBING EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION IS REGULATORY - SELECTION BOARD CAN RELAX IT WHILE SELECTING CANDIDATES - ONCE DISCRETION EXERCISED, NO OTHER AUTHORITY CAN INTERFERE - TERMINATION OF SERVICE CONTRARY TO LAW AND ARBITRARY - REAPPOINTMENT OF TWO CONSTABLES OUT OF FOUR DISCHARGED CONSTABLES ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS AMOUNTS TO HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a constable, was appointed in accordance with the Bihar Police Manual Rules 661 and 653. During training, the Principal of the Constable Training School found him deficient in educational and physical qualifications and recommended termination of his service. The Superintendent of Police terminated his service based on this recommendation. Petitioner challenged this termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's appointment in accordance with the rules conferred a substantive right on him and his service could not be terminated except on grounds and in accordance with the procedure laid down in law. The court found that Rule 666 prescribing the educational qualification was regulatory and the Selection Board could relax it while selecting candidates. Once such discretion was exercised, no other authority could interfere with the decision and hold the selection to be bad at any subsequent stage. The court also found that the termination of service was arbitrary and contrary to law, and that the reappointment of two constables out of four discharged constables on identical grounds amounted to hostile discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioner's service was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination of the petitioner's service was unlawful because it was not based on any valid ground and was not carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in law. The court also found that the reappointment of two constables out of four discharged constables on identical grounds amounted to hostile discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of termination of service and directed that the petitioner be reinstated and paid back salaries from the date of his original appointment.
G.C.Bharuka, J.
1. The present writ application has been filed by the sole petitioner inter alia, for quashing of the order dated 18.7.1986 passed by the Superintendent of Police Gumla, whereby his services as Constable has been terminated on the ground that, he does not hold the minimum educational qualification for being retained as a Constable. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable by the Superintendent of Police, Gumla on 10.12.1984 in accordance with the list prepared by the Selection Board as per the provisions contained in Rule 61(B) of the Police Manual. It may be stated here that petitioner had passed Middle School.
2. It seems that in the year, 1986 the petitioner was sent for training to Constable Training School, Nath Nagar with other constables and during the course of training, the Principal of the School held an opinion that 17 Constables were deficient in their educational physical qualifications. Out of 17 persons, 4 Constables were from Gumla. Those are Baldeo Kumar, Dinesh Rai, Sukh Narayan Tiwary and the petitioner. In pursuance of the said report of the Principal, the respondent, Superintendent of Police held some conversation on telephone with the Deputy Inspector General of Police Ranchi and thereafter by his order dated 18.7.1986 (Annexure 3) communicated to the petitioner and other three aforesaid Constables that for want of requisite educational qualification their services are terminated with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said order of termination the petitioner filed his representation before Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. It seems that acting on the representation, the Inspector General directed the Regional Inspector General, Ranchi to conduct a fresh literary test, and accordingly all the four Constables including the petitioner were directed to appear before the Regional Inspector General to participate in the test with all the documents which had been produced by them before the Selection Board. By communication dated 29.6.1987, which is Annexure-6, the Respondent, D.I.G. Ranchi communicated to the Assistant of D.I.G. Patna that all the four constables have been found fit in the literary test and necessary decision may be taken for their appointment since in his region there is no vacancy.
3. By Memo No. 320, dated 27.7.1987 (Annexure-7) the Assistant to D.I.G. Bihar Patna send a reply inter alia, stating therein that since the matter of all the four Constables including the petitioner was pending consideration, it was incumbent to keep the post vacant in the region, and accordingly it was requested that the services of all the four Constables including the petitioner should be absorbed in various districts of Ranchi region itself. Annexure-8 is an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration) Bihar dated 16.12.1988 which showed that as per the instruction issued by the Director General, out of four Constables, two namely, Baijnath Yadav and Lallan Prasad have been reappointed, since they were found fit in the literacy test. The petitioner again filed representation dated 25.3.1989 which is Annexure-8/A to the writ application before the Director of Police, Directorate, Bihar, Patna but it appears nobody bothered to attend to this representation.
4. The present writ application was admitted on 4.9.1989 and an interim order was passed by a Bench of this Court in these terms:
In view of the order as contained in Annexure-7, dated 27.7.1987 and the order as contained in Annexure-8 dated 16.12.1988, when four persons were re-examined and found successful why only two were re-appointed and not the petitioner and one more is not known.
For the reasons aforementioned, we direct the respondents to forthwith give appointment to the petitioner as given to other two persons vide Annexure-8.
It has been stated at the bar that in spits of this positive direction issued by this Court, the petitioner has not been appointed so far. It will be open to the
