Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, SAMIR J. DAVE, JJ.
Yashvanat Balaji Meshram - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 20133 of 2023
Decided On : 22-07-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Munshaw, Rushabh H. Munshaw.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ankit Shah.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to merit assessment and natural justice is essential in employment termination processes.
Headnote:
Termination - Employment - National Institute of Miners’ Health Recruitment and Merit Assessment Rules, 2004 - The court emphasized the necessity of merit assessment and adherence to natural justice principles in employment termination, ruling that the petitioner was wrongfully terminated without due process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the termination of his services as a driver cum lab attendant by the respondent department, arguing that the termination violated the Recruitment and Merit Assessment Rules, and that he was absorbed as an employee of NIOH after the merger of NIMH and NIOH.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent department failed to conduct the required merit assessment and did not follow the principles of natural justice, leading to the wrongful termination of the petitioner’s services.
Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioner’s services was valid under the applicable Recruitment and Merit Assessment Rules and whether the principles of natural justice were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employer's failure to conduct a merit assessment and provide a fair hearing constituted a violation of the petitioner’s rights, necessitating the quashing of the termination order.
Result: The court quashed the termination order and allowed the petition.
ORDER :
A.Y. Kogje, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order dated 10.11.2023 by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.433 of 2020. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner challenging the order of the respondent- department dated 03.11.2020. By the order dated 03.11.2020, the respondent- department had terminated the services of the petitioner from the post of driver cum lab attendant.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner originally appointed to the post of driver in the year 2003 with the then existing National Institute of Miners’ Health (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIMH’ for short) on contractual basis pursuant to the advertisement issued for the post of driver cum lab attendant. The petitioner having succeeded in the process was given an appointment order dated 27.02.2015 to the post of driver cum lab attendant.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that NIMH was required to undertake a process as per the Recruitment and Merit Assessment Rules, 2004. The exercise of merit assessment/ contract review by the committee and upon such exercise being undertaken and if the petitioner falls within the bracket of assessment for appointment would be taken up as regular employee or upon failing in the merit assessment his services could have been terminated. However, the respondent- department without complying with the requirement of the Rules, particularly, Rule Nos.6.3.2 and 6.3.3 have proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is submitted that it was the duty of the department to undertake this exercise and having failed in doing so, the petitioner’s services ought not to have been terminated. Learned advocate has thereafter submitted that there was merger of NIMH with National Institute of Occupation Health (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIOH’), both working under the umbrella of the Indian Council for Medical Research (hereinafter referred to as ‘ICMR’ for short) and as a part of merger of both the organizations, the employees of NIMH were ordered to be treated as employees of NIOH. It is submitted that at that stage also the petitioner was absorbed as an employee of NIOH and it is thereafter that the impugned order was passed by the department in terminating the services of the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the transfer order dated 23.06.2020 (Annexure-F), which is an order resulting absorption of staff of NIMH into establishment of the NIOH. The name of the applicant appears at Sr. No.14 as a driver in NIOH. The petitioner had resumed accordingly his service as driver in NIOH. The terms and conditions were also made part of the transfer order under which the petitioner was to be treated as an employee of NIOH.
5. According to the learned advocate, the requirement of merit assessment having not been carried out and the fact that the applicant was absorbed as a staff of new organization i.e. NIOH. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the aforesaid two aspects while rejecting the application only on the ground of communication interse between the ICMR and NIOH with the service record of the applicant with regards to the entries made in the service book were not found with the record of the NIMH. According to the petitioner, this was also the responsibility of the concerned department to maintain the service record and therefore, on account of the lapse by the department, the petitioner cannot be made to pay by terminating his services.
6. Learned advocate has also submitted that as per the Rule 7.8 of the Rules, reviewing of the performance of the staff is also essential by the merit assessment/ contract review committee before taking a decision as to whether the petitioner is to be continued or as to where he is required to be terminated at the end of the contract. This exercis
