Illegal termination of service without affording any opportunity of showing cause or hearing is not justified. Appointments made beyond sanctioned strength and without following any selection process do not vest any legal right in the appointees to seek retention in service. Withholding of salary for illegal appointees is not justified.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By order, dated 12.11.1993, issued by the Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, the service of the members of the petitioner-association was terminated. Aggrieved by this order of termination, the petitioner-association came to this court with the help of a writ petition, which gave rise to Civil Rule No. 1071 of 1993. By judgment and order, dated 14.3.1997, the writ petition was allowed and the order, dated 12.11.1993, aforementioned was set aside and quashed on the ground that the termination of service, having been made without affording any opportunity of showing cause or hearing to the persons against whom the order was made, is illegal. Aggrieved by the order, dated 14.3.1997, the State has preferred the present appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the State appellants, and Mr. A. Mohendro, learned Counsel for the petitioner-association.

3. While considering the present writ petition, what may be noted is that this writ petition has been filed by an association, which consists of persons, whose services stand terminated by the impugned order, dated 12.11.2003. An unregistered association is not a juristic person. This apart, no legal or any other right of the said association was violated. Hence, when the said association was not an aggrieved person, it could not have maintained a writ petition. Since the grievances of the members of the said association were individual grievances, the writ petition ought to have been filed by the persons aggrieved and not by the said association, whose rights, if any, were never infringed. In such circumstances, the writ petition ought not to be entertained. However, since the learned Single Judge has entertained the writ petition, we would not like to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge, after about 10 years of the institution of the writ petition, merely on the ground that the writ petition was instituted by an unregistered association but we would certainly deal with the merit of the writ petition and the decision rendered therein.

4. Turning to the impugned order of termination of service, we notice that the members of the petitioner-association were appointed, admittedly, beyond the sanctioned strength, for, as many as 27 persons have been appointed as against the sanctioned strength of 9 persons and, in fact when 9 persons already stood appointed against the said sanctioned strength of 9. The impugned order, dated 12.11.1993, cancels the appointment of all the 27 persons, whose appointments were beyond the sanctioned strength. In such circumstances, the impugned order terminating the service of such appointees cannot be said to be legal.

5. It may, now, be pointed out that the said 27 persons have, admittedly, been appointed without following any selection process, in Grade IV, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 816 per month in the office of the Directorate of State Land Used Board (in short, the Board). Though the Board is being run with the financial assistance received from the Central Government, the fact remains that the appointments had been made in the Directorate of the Board, which functions under the State Government. The service rendered by the persons appointed has to be, therefore, treated as service rendered to the Government of Manipur and not to the Central Government.

6. The learned Single Judge has, we notice, relied on the decision in Shrawan Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 309. In Shrawan Kumar Jha (supra), the appointments were cancelled on the ground that the appointments had been made without following the relevant reservation policy of the State Government. It was in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that Apex Court held that termination of service of such an appointee without giving him any opportunity of showing cause was not sustainable. Hence, the interference by the Apex Court, in Shrawan Kumar Jha (supra), was in the facts of the said cas