Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 43979
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA, J
Smt. Priyanka Saxena – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 15941/2013
H.S. Rajput,Advocate General
Appointments made under a quashed advertisement are null and void; the doctrine of legitimate expectations cannot apply to illegal appointments.
Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 - The petitioners challenged the termination of their services as Staff Nurses based on a quashed advertisement that reserved 100% posts for women. The court found that the petitioners were not parties to the earlier litigation and had no binding rights from the quashed advertisement. The court emphasized that appointments made under a void advertisement are null and void, and the doctrine of legitimate expectations does not apply when the initial appointment was illegal. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 24, 29, 34)
(B) Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations - The court ruled that the doctrine cannot be invoked to claim rights from an illegal appointment process, emphasizing that the expectation must be reasonable and based on established practices. (Paras 24, 26, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed as Staff Nurses under an advertisement that was later quashed due to 100% reservation for women, which was found to violate statutory provisions. They argued that they were qualified and had served for 15 years. (Paras 4, 10, 39)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners' appointments were illegal as they were made under a quashed advertisement, and thus, their termination was valid. (Paras 34, 44)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioners had a right to their positions despite the quashed advertisement and the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectations. (Paras 22, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appointments were void ab initio due to the quashed advertisement, and the petitioners could not claim rights based on an illegal process. (Paras 34, 44)
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
ORDER
As the question of law and facts are similar in all these petitions, they are taken up for analogous hearing and are being decided by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, for proper adjudication, the facts are taken from W.P. No.10456/2013.
3. The petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of order dated 24.05.2013 passed by the respondent No.2-Director, Health Services Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, by which the services of the petitioners were terminated from the post of Staff Nurse on the ground that this Court in a writ petition preferred by some male candidates being W.P. No.10550/2010 wherein they have challenged the advertisement dated 26.07.2010. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 22.11.2010 and the advertisement was set aside and the said order passed in the writ petition has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that State Government has issued advertisement only for the female candidates for the post of Female Nurses on 26/07/2010, issued by the respondent No.2 for the appointment of total post of 1932 Staff Nurses division wise. The posts were exclusively for the Women candidates in terms of Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2010. The advertisement categorically stated that due to non-availability of the candidates from the Govt. Nursing Centres applications of the candidates who have passed the Higher Secondary 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and Biology and B.Sc. Nursing or Diploma in Nursing from any recognized institution. The candidate should be registered under the M.P. Nursing Registration Council. The petitioners were fulfilling all requisite qualifications in terms of the advertisement. They participated in the counselling between 20/09/2010 to 26/09/2010. Thereafter, the appointment orders were issued to them.
5. The respondents conducted the counselling between 20/09/2010 to 26/09/2010 against the vacant posts of 1932 but they have only issued the selection list of 161 candidates/staff nurses. In pursuance to the said appointment they have submitted their joining in the respondent/department. Initially, they were under probation and after working for two years and on successful completion of their probation period, they were regularized in service and they were granted a revised pay scale band plus grade pay i.e. Rs.5200 - 20200/- + 2400 (Grade Pay). A writ petition was filed by some of the male candidates being W.P. No.10550/2010 (Sajid Khan and others v. The State of M.P. and another) and while issuing notices on 23.08.2010 and as an interim measure, the respondents were directed to accept the applications of the petitioners therein and permit them to participate in the process of selection, however, it was directed that no appointment orders should be issued without the leave of the Court.
6. In pursuance to the interim order granted by the Court the male candidates participated in the recruitment process but as they were not fulfilling the required qualification in terms of the policy they were not considered for appointment to the post in question. They also filed a contempt petition being Conc. No.651/2010.
7. It is argued that the petitioners were neither a party to the said litigation nor they were granted any opportunity of hearing prior to passing such orders. They have already joined their services on the respective posts of Staff Nurse initially on probation and subsequently after completion of training as well as the probation period, their services were regularized. But as the writ petition filed by the male candidates was allowed vide order dated 22.11.2010 setting aside the advertisement dated 26.07.2010 and the said order has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the SLP preferred has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order passed by the writ Court has attained finality. In view of the aforesaid, the authorities have passed the order dated 24.05.2013 whereby the respondent No.
