Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Ram Kishor Meena & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 4530 of 2020 & CM No. 16348 of 2020
Decided On : 02-11-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr.Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr. H.S. Tiwari & Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advocates., for the Petitioners; Mr.C.K. Bhatt, Advocate with Mr.Rahul Sharma, Central Government Pleader & Mr.Janak Raj, Inspector., for the Respondents

The cancellation of appointments made against the relevant rules and on the posts which are not sanctioned, cannot be permitted to hold the field. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure for appointment and the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:
Vacancy Calculation - Sub Inspector (Ministerial) - Sashtra Seema Bal (SSB) - [Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Combatised, Ministerial and Stenographers (Non-Gazetted) Group 'B' and 'C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 2011] - The court discussed the calculation of vacancies for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) and the irregularities in the appointment process. The court quashed the order cancelling the appointment of 53 candidates and directed the Revised Select List of SI (Min), LDCE, 2016-17 dated 02.03.2017 to remain in force, allowing all 61 appointees to continue working from the date of their appointments.
Fact of the Case:

The respondents had initially invited applications for 08 vacancies of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) for the year 2016-17. The vacancy position was later increased to 61, and 61 candidates were appointed. Subsequently, the appointment of 53 candidates was cancelled by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had erred in calculating the vacancies and had violated the procedure prescribed for appointment. The court held that the cancellation of the appointment of 53 candidates was against the principles of natural justice and quashed the order, allowing all 61 appointees to continue working from the date of their appointments.
Issues: The main issue was the irregularities in the calculation of vacancies and the subsequent cancellation of the appointment of 53 candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of the appointment of 53 candidates was against the principles of natural justice and allowed all 61 appointees to continue working from the date of their appointments.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order cancelling the appointment of 53 candidates and directed the Revised Select List of SI (Min), LDCE, 2016-17 dated 02.03.2017 to remain in force, allowing all 61 appointees to continue working from the date of their appointments.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Aggrieved against the order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the respondents, whereby merit list of promotion of 61 candidates to the post of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in Sashtra Seema Bal (SSB) vide order dated 02.03.2017, has been invalidated, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing thereof. Petitioners are praying for directions to respondents for permitting permit them continue on the post of Sub Inspector against the vacancies pertaining to the years 2016-17 with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts emerging from the petition are that on 08.11.2016, the respondents had issued an advertisement to fill 08 vacant posts of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) for the year 2016-17 through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The petitioners being eligible, applied and participated in the written examination held on 18.01.2017, result whereof was declared on 16.02.2017. The terms of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Combatised, Ministerial and Stenographers (Non-Gazetted) Group 'B' and 'C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 2011 mandates that 75% posts are to be first filled by promotion, failing which by deputation; and remaining 25% through LDCE from amongst the Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) of SSB.

3. According to petitioners, for the year 2016-17, the vacancy position to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) was 244 posts, out of which 183 posts were to be filled by promotion and remaining 61 posts were to be filled by LDCE; whereas vide advertisement dated 08.11.2016, only 08 vacant posts were issued. So, some of the petitioners made a representation to the concerned respondent to re-calculate the vacancy position to be filled through LDCE for the year 2016-17. Accordingly, the respondent issued Signal dated 02.03.2017 informing that based upon the recalculation of vacancy position, the competent authority had approved select list of 61 candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) by LDCE, wherein names of petitioners were reflected. Pursuant to Signal dated 02.03.2017, vide FAX/VAN Message bearing No. 299/RC/SSB/SI (Min) LDCE/2016-17/1237-39 of even date, the competent authority approved appointment of 61 candidates, including the petitioners herein, to the rank of Sub-Inspectors (Ministerial). The petitioners joined in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) pursuant to order dated 02.03.2017 and successfully completed their probation period in March, 2019; and the respondents vide order dated 15.07.2020 confirmed and regularized the petitioners to the said post effective therefrom. However, vide order dated 17.07.2020 issued by the respondents, it was informed that the merit list dated 16.02.2017, promoting 08 candidates to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) is valid; whereas the merit list of 61 candidates vide order dated 02.03.2017, shall be treated as invalid and cancelled. Consequentially, the respondents cancelled the appointment of petitioners to the post of Sub-Inspector vide another order dated 17.07.2020. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the settled position of law is that once benefit of promotion has been given, it cannot be taken away without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected person. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing and respondents in mala fide manner have left the petitioners to suffer for no fault of theirs. Reliance was placed upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar 2009 (14) SCC 690.

5. Learned counsel submitted that a few candidates who had not been selected for appointment in the merit list dated 02.03.2017, had filed writ petitions before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 2559/2017, Vikrant Nispagshi Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and W.P.(C) No. 2081/2017, titled as Shiv Cha