2005 Supreme(All) 627
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shishir Kumar, J.
Amin Ullah, Sochan Sheikh, Ejaj Ahmad, Sochan Sheikh
Versus
Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Regional Ayurvedic Evam Unani Officer
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 30418 of 1999
Decided On : 06 April 2005
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 30418 Of 1999
M.C.Chaturvedi, PARVEZ ALAM, S.M.A.Kazmi, S.S.SHARMA, SARDEEP MUKHERJEE, SATYA PRAKASH,
Appointments made without permission and proper procedure are void ab initio and do not require notice or opportunity before cancellation.
Headnote:
Appointment - Quashing of Orders - Employment Exchange Act, 1959, Section 9 - Ayurvedic and Unani Services Act - [Employment Exchange Act, 1959, Section 9, Ayurvedic and Unani Services Act]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the order cancelling their appointments as Sweeper-cum-Chaukidar in hospitals and to command the respondents to permit them to continue on their posts and pay their regular salary and arrears. The appointments were made based on recommendations from the Employment Exchange and the Selection Committee, but were later cancelled without proper procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointments were not made in accordance with proper procedure and without permission from the competent authority, rendering them void ab initio. The court held that no opportunity was necessary before cancelling the appointments, as they were not valid from the beginning.
Issues: Validity of appointments made without permission and proper procedure, entitlement to notice or opportunity before cancellation of appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: Appointments made without permission and proper procedure are void ab initio and do not require notice or opportunity before cancellation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.
( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15. 5. 1999 passed by Director, Ayurvedic and Unani services U. P. Lucknow, and the order of communication dated 8. 6. 1999 of Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Mau (Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition) and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to implement the orders dated 15. 5. 1999 and 8. 6. 1999 and further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue on their posts as Sweeper-cum-Chaukidar in hospitals and to pay their regular salary to the petitioners as well as the arrears of salary, which is due since 1995.
( 2 ) THE fact arising out of the present writ petition is that the names of the petitioners were enrolled in the Employment Exchange, Mau. The opposite party No. 2 sought the names for making appointment on the post of Sweeper-cum-Chaukidar in Regional Ayurvedic and Unani hospitals, Mau for their posting in various Ayurvedic and Unani Government Hospitals, Mau. The Employment Officer recommended the name of 103 candidates including the petitioners. The Selection Committee held the selection and recommended the names including the petitioners for making appointment on the post of Sweeper-cum-Chaukidar. It has also been stated that the then Director, Dr. Shiv Raj has also given permission to make the appointments on the post of Class IV employees vide order dated 23. 2. 1995. In pursuance of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the appointment letters were issued and the appointment letter dated 7. 5. 1995 have been annexed as Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition. That in pusuance of the appointment letter, the petitioners have joined and regularly worked in the department on the post of Sweeper-cum-Chaukidar. The salary to the petitioners were not paid by the opposite party No. 2 then the petitioners have approached this Court by way of Writ petition No. 30616 of 1995 (Lal Chand Ram and Ors. v. District Magistrate, Mau and Ors. ). This Court on 3. 11. 1996 was pleased to pass the following orders "in the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the representation filed by this petitioner for ventilation of his grievance by means of speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. "
( 3 ) IN spite of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the Director did not pass any order and no counter affidavit was filed. Ultimately, on 1. 5. 1998, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Director to pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date the certified copy is produced. It has been submitted that the copy of the aforesaid order dated 1. 5. 1998 was submitted before the opposite party No. l along with their representations. The opposite party No. 1 sought report from District Magistrate, Mau, who directed the Settlement Officer, Mau to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. On 20. 6. 1995, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Mau without giving any notice or affording any opportunity to the petitioners submitted an exparte report to the District Magistrate, Mau and the district Magistrate, Mau on 10. 6. 1997 has sent a letter along with report of the Settlement officer, Mau dated 20. 6. 1995 to the opposite party No. 1. On the basis of the aforesaid reports the opposite party No. 1 has passed exparte order without any notice or opportunity to the petitioners and the opposite party No. 1 vide order dated 15. 5. 1999 has cancelled the appointments of the petitioners. The copy of the order dated 15. 5. 1999 has been filed as annexure 5 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the order of the opposite party No. 1 dated 15. 5. 1999, the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Mau, Respondent No. 2 has passed an order dated