Back
2000 Supreme(Pat) 1080
PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Rai and Shashank Kr.Singh JJ.
Rahul
Versus
State Of Bihar
Letter Patent Appeal No. 126 of 2000 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 06, 2000
The court emphasized that the non-supply of relevant documents does not necessarily prejudice the case and that regularising an illegal appointment would perpetrate illegality.
Headnote:
Relaxation of Qualification - Employment Dispute - Article 309 of the Constitution of India, Rule framed in 1987 - The Bihar Public Service Commission Act - The State Government Act - The State Government Act - The State Government Act - The State Government Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Assistant Engineer at the State Institute of Educational Technology (SIET), Bihar, challenged the termination of his services due to not possessing the requisite qualifications for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's appointment was void ab initio as he did not possess the required qualifications and was engaged through a back-door entry. The court also dismissed the appellant's claim for regularisation of service.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's qualification, the legality of his appointment, and the regularisation of his service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-supply of relevant documents did not vitiate the proceeding and that the appellant's service could not be regularised due to the initial illegality of his appointment.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the appellant's submissions.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.1999, passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1236 of 1998, by which the writ application filed by the appellant challenging the notification dated 10.1.1998, issued under the order of the Governor of Bihar, terminating the services of the appellant as an Assistant Engineer, State Institute of Educational Technology (SIET), Bihar, Patna has been dismissed.
2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows:
The aforesaid SIET was established in the year 1985 by the Government of India as an agency for utilising the INSAT 1B for educational purposes and qualitative development in education under the direct control of the State Government. Later on in 1991, the State Government took a decision to make the said SIET as an autonomous body and on 14.1.1994 the same has been made an autonomous body.
3. The appellant filed an application in 1988 before the Director, SCERT & SIET, Education Department, Government of Bihar, for his appointment as an Assistant Television Engineer vide Annexure 1 to the writ application, wherein he stated that he is an Engineering Graduate with first class degree from B.I.T., Mesra, Ranchi, and has knowledge of electronic hardware. Thereafter, he was engaged on a purely provisional basis on 20.2.1988 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The said order of engagement was modified by order dated 21.3.1988 and the period of his provisional appointment was confined to a period of six months only (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). On 2.4.1987, the State Government in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed a rule with regard to appointment etc. of the employees of the SIET and a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure C to the counteraffidavit.
4. According to the said rule, the post of Assistant Engineer (TV.), on which post the appellant was appointed provisionally, is a Gazetted post and the pay scale of the said post, at the relevant time, was Rs. 1350/- 2000/. The requisite qualification for the said post is degree in Electrical Engineering/Electronics/Electrical Communication Engineering or M.Sc. Degree in Physics with Wireless communication or Electronics as a special subject from the recognised University or equivalent and two years experience in operation and manufacture of T.V. etc. in a responsible capacity.
5. After expiry of the aforesaid period of six months, again the appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis till further order or till the concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission by order dated 22.8.1988 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) though he did not possess the requisite qualification as, admittedly, he has a degree in Mechanical Engineering and not in any of the subjects, which, according to the rules, are the requisite qualifications for appointment on the said post.
6. The respondents having noticed that the appointment of the appellant was illegal, terminated the same by order dated 22.11.1990 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). The appellant challenged the aforesaid order before this court in C.W.J.C. No. 1317 of 1991 and the same was quashed by order dated 13.5.1991 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) on the ground that the said order of termination was passed without any show-cause. Thereafter, the respondent- authorities issued a show-cause notice to the appellant and again passed an order of termination of his service, which was challenged by the appellant in C.W.J.C. No. 1346 of 1993 and a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 7.4.1994 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) allowed the same on the ground of vagueness. Thereafter, again a fresh show-cause notice was issued on 29.4.1997 as to why the appointment of the appellant would not be cancelled, it was specifically stated in the show-cause notice that the post held by the appellant was a Class-I post and without any ad- vertisement as prescribed in the rules and without any recommendation of the B
