Back
Rajasthan High Court
Honble H.R. PANWAR, J.
Prashant Bohra & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4139 of 2000
Decided On : October 31, 2003
Once the petitioners accepted the appointment and joined the duties without any protest, they cannot, now, raise the grievance that the appointment was not made in terms of the advertisement. The financial contingencies prevented the respondents to provide appointment in the aforesaid pay scale and simultaneous the respondents wanted to provide appointment to the youth on the consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month to make an equilibrium in between the financial hardship and the problem of unemployment faced by the youth. Thus, the services of the petitioners are governed by the terms of appointment order and not by the terms of advertisement. Once the petitioners accepted the appointment on consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month, the principle of approbate and reprobate prevents them to raise the grievance for grant of salary in the regular pay scale. It is settled proposition of law that appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Once appointment had been offered to the petitioner on the consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- and they accepted the same without any protest, the same cannot be challenged on the ground that the same has not been given in terms of the advertisement. The appointment orders became the contract between the petitioners and the respondents and once the petitioners entered into that contract, they cannot raise the question regarding grant of salary in the pay scale shown in the advertisement. (Para 8)
The appointments have been made for a probation period of two years and their case shall be considered for regularisation on rendered two years satisfactory service. As such, the respondents may keep themselves abide by the aforesaid term in the appointment orders and consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation if their services have been found satisfactory. (Para 10)
(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this writ petition are that in pursuance of the advertisement No. 1/99 dated 26-2-99 issued by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Udaipur, the petitioners applied for the post of Gram Sevak cum Paden Sachiv. As per the advertisement itself, the said posts were carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3200-85-4900/-. The petitioners qualified the written examination and they were declared successful. Meanwhile, a ban was imposed on appointment and after lifting of the ban, they were given appointment vide orders dated 28-10-99 and 15-11-99 on the consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month. Thereafter petitioners were sent for training and they completed the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the terms of the advertisement itself, the post in question was carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3200-85- 4900/- and as such giving appointment to them on the consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of the advertisement itself. Hence this writ petition.
(3). The respondents filed reply stating therein that the process of appointment had to be withheld as per the order dated 29-6-99 (Annx. R/i) issued by the State Government due to financial constraints and ultimately it was decided at the highest level that the process of selection can be continued provided the selected candidates are paid the fixed salary of Rs. 1200/- per month and their cases for extension and regularisation shall be considered on rendering satisfactory service by them. Petitioners joined the post without any protest and now they cannot assail the same in view of the principles of acquiescence as well as approbate and reprobate. It has further been contended that the terms of appointment are governed by the appointment orders and not by the terms of the advertisement as the order of appointment is a contract, to which consent was given by the petitioners by way of joining the duties without any protest.
(4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(5). There cannot be any doubt that the petitioners applied in pursuance of the advertisement for the post in question carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3200-85-4900/- and on their being selected, they were expecting their salary in the said pay scale. However, the financial exigencies prevented the State Government to give appointment in this pay scale and the candidates were offered appointment on the consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month. Once the petitioners accepted the appointment on the consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- per month without any protest, they cannot claim the salary in the aforesaid regular pay scale and the principle of acquiescene come in their way.
(6). Undoubtedly, acquiescence, being the principle of equity, must be made applicable in a case where the order has been passed and complied with without raising any objection, as held in M/s. Pannalal Binjraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh vs. Latafat Ullah Khan & Ors. (2), Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (3), State of Punjab vs. Krishan Niwas (4), State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Narain Prasad (5), State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar. Sunil Kumar & Party & Anr. (6), and Kali Prasad & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. (7).
(7). In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amaravati & Ors. (8), the Honble Supreme Court summarised the law of acquiescence observing that once an order is passed and accepted by the party, it derives benefit and advantage from it for some time, it would amount to acquiescence and such a party cannot be permitted to assail the validity of the order.
(8). Further, o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
