1998 Supreme(Pat) 5

High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench)
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.
Pradeep Kumar Mehta and others (in 3973)
Manindra Prasad and Anr. (in 4111) - Petitioners
Versus
State of Bihar & ors. - Respondent
C.W.J.C. No. 3973 with C.W.J.C. No. 4111 of 1996 (R)
Decided On : 5.1.1998

Termination of services after a lapse of several years on the ground of irregularities in appointment is not justified if the employees were appointed after following the procedures laid down by the Government.

Headnote:

WRIT - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONERS - IRREGULARITIES IN APPOINTMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICES AFTER LAPSE OF SEVERAL YEARS - VALIDITY - HELD, TERMINATION OF SERVICES NOT JUSTIFIED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners were appointed on various posts pursuant to advertisement and their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Selection Committee/Interview Board consisted of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, (respondent no. 6) as its Chairman, the Dy. Superintendent being the Sr. Officer of the establishment of Civil Surgeon and the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi, which was constituted strictly on the guidelines contained in the Chief Secretary's letter being memo no. 16440 dated 3.12.80. The petitioners being interviewed and found suitable, their names were included in the panel for appointment which was prepared in four parts consisting of the lists of applicants of scheduled tribe, scheduled caste, general category and a waiting list for schedule tribes, scheduled castes and general candidates. The said panel, prepared by the Selection Committee, was sent to the Health Department by letter no.99 dated 20.1.90. The Director in Chief, Health Services duly approved the said panel which would be evident from memo no. 53 (IIC) dated 5.2.90. However, after a few months of their appointment, the services of all the petitioners were terminated on the basis of a teleprinter message dated 16.5.90 issued from the office of the Health Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar (Annexure 8). The petitioners challenged the same before this court in CWJC nos. 1212 and 1329 of 1990 (R) and the said termination orders were quashed on 5.11.90 (Annexure 10). The Division Bench noticed the facts as follows: “We have already noticed that there are materials available on the record to show that in pursuance of the advertisement, a panel was prepared and persons out of the said panel were appointed. These appointments were approved by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, if the State Government found that there had been any irregularity in making appointments, it could have ordered an inquiry into the matter. If the Government proposed to pass any order which would have adversely affected the petitioners, the authorities were required to hear the petitioners which admittedly in these cases were not done.” This court, holding that the respondents could not have terminated the services of the petitioners on the basis of the teleprinter message, quashed the impunged orders and also held that the petitioners were entitled to their salaries for all the periods. However, the Division Bench gave liberty by observing “needless to say that if the State Government is of opinion that the question of application of the petitioners should be inquired into, it can do so after giving notice to the petitioners”.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were appointed after following the procedures laid down by the Government and that the termination of their services after a lapse of several years on the ground of irregularities in their appointment was not justified.

Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioners' services after a lapse of several years on the ground of irregularities in their appointment was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination of the petitioners' services was not justified as they were appointed after following the procedures laid down by the Government and that the irregularities in their appointment, if any, did not vitiate their selection.

Final Decision: The court allowed both the writ applications and quashed the impugned orders of termination. Consequently, the petitioners were deemed to be in continuous service and they were directed to be paid their salaries from the date of their termination.