Appointments made without adhering to mandatory statutory requirements, such as sanctioned staffing strength and government approval, are void ab initio. In such cases, the principle of natural justice regarding pre-termination hearings does not apply, as the initial engagement essentially lacks legal legitimacy from the beginning.

ORDER :

The Chief Municipal Officer of Nagar Parishad, Kailaras, District Morena, (respondent no.4), vide order, dated 10.04.2023, dispensed with services of as many as 109 persons who were engaged on contract/daily wages by the then Chief Municipal Officer, challenging which these writ petitions have been filed. The facts and the legal position since are common in all these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common order. For purposes of convenience, the facts are taken from W.P. No.8290 of 2023 filed by Jitendra Shakya and nine others.

[2]. The Nagar Parishad, Kailaras, District Morena (hereinafter referred as “Council”), has been constituted under Section 5 of Municipalities Act, 1961, (in short ‘Act’). By virtue of Section 3(18) of Act, Nagar Parishad is a Municipality and is governed by the Act of 1961. Section 86 of the Act provides for constitution of State Municipal Service and sub-section 3 thereof provides that the salary, allowances, gratuity, annuity, pension and other payments required to be made to the members of the State Municipal Service, in accordance with the conditions of their service, shall be a charge on the Municipal Fund. Section 87 of the Act provides for appointment of Chief Municipal Officer for every Council and further provides that all other officers & servants of the Council shall be subordinate to Chief Municipal Officer. Section 88 of the Act provides for appointment of members of Municipal Services of State. The appointment of petitioners is not covered under Section 86 & 88 of the Act.

[3]. Section 94 of the Act provides for appointment of staff of the Council. Under sub-section 1 thereof, it is the Council which is competent to appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties. This section apparently deals with power of Council to appoint officers and servants within the staffing pattern approved by the State Government. The petitioners are not covered under Section 94(1) of the Act also.

[4]. Sub-section 9 of Section 94 of the Act provides for another source of appointment in the Council which may possibly cover petitioners. It being important for decision of this case, is reproduced hereunder:

“94(9). The President-in-Council may, with prior permission of the State Government, appoint subject specialists and personnel on contract for specified period and the manner and terms and conditions of appointment of such specialists and personnel on contract shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government”

[5]. Thus, under Section 94(9) of the Act, the Council may appoint personnel on contract for specified period, however such appointment can only be made with the permission of the State Government and on terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government.

[6]. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal provisions, the facts of the present case are required to be examined.

[7]. A copy of resolution, dated 06.12.2021, has been brought on record at page no.23 of the petition which approved appointment of 42 employees on contract basis for purposes of water distribution, revenue collection etc. of the Council. The Chief Municipal Off