Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. R. Singh, J.
SANJEEV KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 13799 Of 1998, with 5 other Writ Petition
Decided On : 01/29/1999
NATURAL JUSTICE - APPOINTMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION - APPLICABILITY IN SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE - TERMINATION OF SERVICES AS NO LONGER REQUIRED - VAGUENESS - VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 21 AND 41 OF THE CONSTITUTION - NEED FOR TRANSPARENT SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE - OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE - VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - LIABILITY TO PAY DAMAGES - DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION - OPERATES IN THE DOMAIN OF PUBLIC LAW - CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIVE AND ENFORCEABLE RIGHT - EXCEPTIONS - VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ACTIONABLE PER SE - STATE MAY BE HELD LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - LIABILITY NOT HEDGED IN BY THE LIMITS INCLUDING THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY - SERVICES TERMINATED AS NO LONGER REQUIRED - EXPRESSION CONNOTES VAGUENESS - NEED FOR TRANSPARENT SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE - DISPENSATION OF SERVICES OF PUBLIC SERVANTS BY USING THE PHRASEOLOGY SERVICES NO LONGER REQUIRED BE EXCORIATED - GIVES FILLIP TO AVOIDABLE LITIGATION AND TENDS TO VIOLATE ARTICLES 14, 21 AND 41 OF THE CONSTITUTION - COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT - APPOINTMENTS NOT RELATABLE TO ANY VACANCIES - MADE AS BEING DISCORDANT WITH THE RELEVANT SERVICE RULES - SOME OF THE APPOINTEES IN MEERUT REGION HAPPENED TO BE KITH AND KIN OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY I.E., THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MEERUT - COURT'S VIEW - OPPORTUNITY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PROFFERED TO THE APPOINTEES TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE APPOINTMENTS BE NOT RESCINDED OR SERVICE BE NOT TERMINATED FOR THE REASONS AFORESAID - ORDERS TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS ARE, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, VITIATED OWING TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIEW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN BASDEO TIWARY A. SIDO-KANHU UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS, JT 1998 16) SC 464; SHRIDHAR V. NAGAR PALIKA. JAUNPUR. AIR 1990; SHRAWAN KUMAR JHA V. STATE OF BIHAR, 1991 SUPP. (1) SCC 330 : AND A DECISION OF THIS COURT IN RATS AHMAD V. STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS, (1998) 2 UPLBEC 1232.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners' grievances are focussed on orders by which their services came to be terminated as no longer required. The petitioners seek the reliefs of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders by which their services were terminated in purported exercise of powers under notification dated 29. 4. 1980 as no longer required and for a direction in the nature of mandamus to pay them salary.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned orders which have been passed in violation of fundamental principles of natural justice and doctrine of legitimate expectation are unsustainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the principle of natural justice and doctrine of legitimate expectation are applicable in service jurisprudence? 2. Whether the termination of services as no longer required is vague and violates Articles 14, 21 and 41 of the Constitution? 3. Whether there is a need for a transparent system of governance? 4. Whether the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to show cause as to why the appointments be not rescinded or service be not terminated? 5. Whether the orders terminating the services of the petitioners are vitiated owing to non-compliance with the rules of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of natural justice and doctrine of legitimate expectation are applicable in service jurisprudence. 2. The termination of services as no longer required is vague and violates Articles 14, 21 and 41 of the Constitution. 3. There is a need for a transparent system of governance. 4. The petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to show cause as to why the appointments be not rescinded or service be not terminated. 5. The orders terminating the services of the petitioners are vitiated owing to non-compliance with the rules of natural justice.
Final Decision: The writ petitions succeed and are allowed and impugned orders are quashed excepting the order of termination of services of Shakil Ahmad. The petitioners excepting ahmad, shall be resituated in service with full back salary and other allowances with liberty reserved to the Competent Authority, to pass such orders as it may deem fit and proper after giving show cause notice to individual appointees.
( 1 ) PETITIONERSgrievances are focussed on orders by which their services came to be terminated as no longer required. The petitioners seek the reliefs of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders by which their services were terminated in purported exercise of powers under notification dated 29. 4. 1980 as no longer required and for a direction in the nature of mandamus to pay them salary.
( 2 ) PETITIONERS in this fascicle of writ petitions were appointed junior clerks/asstt. Cashiers grade-2 concerned Sub-Regional Transport Offices. The Civil Writ Petition No. 13799 of 1998 wearing the mantle of leading file, pertains to Sub-Regional Transport Offices in Meerut Region. The appointments were seemingly made in the purported compliance of the service Rules notified by Notification dated 29. 4. 80 and ostensibly against permanent vacancies after prior intimation of the vacancies to the Addl. Transport Commissioner (Head quarters) U. P. Lucknow vide D. O. letter dated 5. 7. 1997 annexed as Annexure-2 to the leading case. The Transport commissioner, U. P. Lucknow, it would appear, gave his imprimatur vide letter dated 15-7. 1997 for recruitment being made in accordance with rules in Meerut, Ghaziabad Moradabad regions and Saharanpur Sub-region. Similar procedure is said to have been employed in making appointments in other Regional/sub Regional Transport Offices. It would be worthwhile to notice that although the procedure laid down for regular appointment is said to have been abided but the status of appointees was quoted in their appointment letter as temporary.
( 3 ) 1 have heard Sri L. P. Naithani and Sri V. C. Misra, Senior Advocates for the petitioners and sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A. P Sahi and the standing counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged, inter alia, that the appointments had all the indicia of regular and permanent appointments and hence were not liable to be terminated in the manner prescribed for termination of temporary employment ; that the orders terminating the services of the petitioners were issued by the Appointing Authority at the behest of the Transport commission and hence, the exercise of discretion by the Appointing Authority (Regional transport Officer) terminating the services of the petitioner was tainted by error of law ; that the impugned orders were vitiated for reason that the principle of natural justice and fair-play in state action was not at all observed by the respondents ; that the termination of services of the petitioner as no longer required was a mere smokescreen for termination actuated by extraneous and political considerations ; and that in the fact-"situation of the case, a reasonable and fair enquiry ought to have been held before terminating the services of the petitioners if at all, the services were liable to be terminated on ground that the appointments were made in flagrant derogation of rules and or against non-existent vacancies as alleged in the counter -affidavit. In opposition, Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the caveator in one of the writ petitions and the standing counsel, appearing for the State Authorities, submitted that the petitioners had alternative remedy under the provisions of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal act, 1976 ; that appointments were made de hors the rules and in the fact-situation of the case, the Court should not step in to interfere with the impugned orders in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ; that in the similar situation. Writ Petition No. 15783 of 1988 met the fate of dismissal at Lucknow Bench of this Court and two writ petitions--one by shakil Ahmad and the other by Vikas Sachan were dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court ; and that the petitioners who had no right to the posts, were not entitled to any opportunity of hearing being given as a condition precedent to termination of their service no
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
