Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
Bhawani Singh, C.J. and A.K. Mishra, J.
Hari Narayan Sakya
Vs.
State of M.P. and Ors.
Writ Petition No. 5957/98
Decided On: 25.04.2000
Appointments - Termination of Services - Fairness in Administrative Action - Quasi-Judicial Functions - Audi Alteram Partem - [Appointments] - [Termination of Services] - [State of M.P. and Ors. v. Shyama Pardhi etc., 1994 (2) SCC 631; Ku. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Ors.; Shrawan Kumar Jha and Ors. v. Slate of Bihar and Ors.; Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.; Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and Ors.] - The court discussed the fairness in administrative action, the obligation to adopt the judicial approach, and the requirement to comply with the basic requirements of justice. It emphasized the principle of audi alteram partem, stating that administrative orders involving civil consequences must be made consistently with this rule. The court also highlighted the broader notion of 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in administrative action, emphasizing the duty to act fairly even in non-adjudicative administrative decision-making. The judgment cited various cases to support the requirement of prior opportunity of hearing before cancelling appointments on the ground of incompetence of the authority. The court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to prior hearing before the action of termination was taken against them, emphasizing the need for fairness in the administrative process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed against regular pay scales or on a daily wage basis as dispensary servants under the State Government. Some were regularized, and others were promoted to higher posts. The appointments were questioned, and a Committee found them to be illegally made, leading to the termination of the petitioners' services. The petitioners challenged the decision, contending that it was arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to prior hearing before the action of termination was taken against them. It emphasized the obligation to adopt the judicial approach and comply with the basic requirements of justice in administrative actions. The court held that the petitioners should have been associated in the enquiry conducted into the appointments and that fairness in the action was essential. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the orders of termination, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the appointments, regularisation, and promotions of the petitioners, the fairness in the administrative process, and the requirement of prior opportunity of hearing before the termination of services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle of fairness in administrative action, emphasizing the obligation to adopt the judicial approach and comply with the basic requirements of justice. It highlighted the need for audi alteram partem, stating that administrative orders involving civil consequences must be made consistently with this rule. The court also emphasized the broader notion of 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in administrative action, stating that the duty to act fairly arises in widely different circumstances.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the orders of termination, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioners. It emphasized the need for fairness in the administrative process and the requirement of prior opportunity of hearing before the termination of services.
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This batch of 17 Writ Petitions (1) W.P. 1808/98 (Maniram Jatav v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (2) W.P. No. 5785/98 (Ramavtar Sahu v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (3) W.P. No. 5790/98 (Mst. Mushtari Begum v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (4) W.P. No. 5804/98 (Mataprasad Sahu v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (5) W.P. No. 5815/98 (Moreshwar Barasker v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (6) W.P. No. 5838/98 (Shyamraj Chichkhere v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (7) W.P. No. 5949/98 (Ramkishore Kori v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (8) W.P. No. 5951/98 (Rajaram Kori v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (9) W.P. No. 5957/98 (Hari Narayan Sakya v. State of M.P. and Ors.)., (10) W.P. No. 5973/98 (Vinod Babu Sharma v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (11) W.P. No. 5976/98 (Ghanshyam Das Ahirwar v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (12) W.P. No. 5989/98 (Sampatlal Kulaste v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (13) W.P. No. 5999/98 (Mansaram v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (14) W.P. No. 6003/98 (Shyam Singh Bhadoriya and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (15) W.P. No. 6082/98 (Krishna Kumar Verma v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (16) W.P. No. 619/99 (Smt. Aasha Chandani v. State of M.P. and Ors.), (17) W.P. No. 659/99 (Ghanshyam Vanaskar v. State of M.P. and Ors.) is proposed to be decided by this order since they are common in nature and the question for determination in all of them is the same.
2. Some of the petitioners were appointed against regular pay scales, while others were appointed on daily wage basis by different orders, as dispensary servants, Class IV post under the State Government. Those who were appointed for 89 days were continued in that capacity for number of years and then regularised. Petitioners in W.P. No. 5804/98 and W.P. No. 5815/98 were also promoted to the post of Compounder (Ayurved) and Compounder (Homoeopathy) respectively. These appointments were questioned and the matter was raised in the State Vidhan Sabha at some stage sequel to which a Committee was appointed to look into the matter. The Committee examined the matter and found that these appointments were illegally made. Consequently, the Order dated March 23, 1998 (Annexure P-8) was passed terminating the services of the petitioners.
3. Petitioners challenged the action of the respondents before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal, through different applications which have been dismissed. Accepting the case of the respondents, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that these were illegal appointments, petitioners were not qualified, therefore, they had no right to continue in service. Consequently, action taken was justified. Petitioners have challenged the decision through these petitions.
4. Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the decision of the respondents terminating the services of the petitioners is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Elaborating the contention, learned counsel submits that the termination order spells out that the action was taken for three reasons, namely, the appointments were bad and so were the regularisation and promotions. How the appointments, regularisation and promotions were bad has remained within the domain of the respondents and at the most, the Committee, which is stated to have been appointed to look into the matter. With a view to bring home the point, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (Ku. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Ors.); (Shrawan Kumar Jha and Ors. v. Slate of Bihar and Ors.), (Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.) and (Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and Ors.). Next contention of learned counsel is that finding of the Tribunal that petitioners are not qualified is patently unsustainable. Reference is made to the rules for appointment and it is contended that the petitioners are qualified to hold the posts to which they have been recruited and some of them later promoted.
5. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the St
AI
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
