1996 JTR(SC) 1443
1996 AIR(SCW) 4062 ; 1997 1 CLR 129 ; 1997 76 FLR 182 ; 1996 9 JT 260 ; 1997 1 LLJ 1183 ; 1997 2 LLN 37 ; 1997 1 RSJ 272 ; 1996 7 Scale 329 ; 1996 10 SCC 749 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 1487 ; 1996 Supp6 SCR 117 ; 1997 1 SCT 361 ; 1996 3 SLR 673 ; 1996 7 Supreme 390
1996(7) Supreme 390
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddtn & G.B.
Pattanaik, JJ.
Pramod Lahudas Meshram -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No.
19775 of 1996
(CC-4217/96)
Decided on 11-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : A.K. Sanghi and S.V. Deshpande, Advocates.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Rules governing appointments to civil engineering positions in local self-government bodies mandate that selections made by the competent authority through a constituted Service Selection Board must be based on proper, authorized recommendations reflected in official records. The rules require that eligibility, qualification, and reserved category status as per the advertisement must be validated through a formal recommendation process documented in the selection board's proceedings. Where the selection board has recommended candidates for appointment, any subsequent cancellation or termination of such appointments must adhere strictly to the prescribed procedure, ensuring procedural fairness.
(B) Key legal principles include the requirement of authorized recommendations in appointments, the procedural safeguards under service rules, and the non-availability of opportunities for hearing prior to termination vitiating the action as being against principles of natural justice.
Facts of the case:
A reserved category candidate qualified in engineering and applied for a Junior Engineer position as per a dated advertisement. He was selected based on recommendations by the Service Selection Board and appointed on probation. After nine months, his appointment was cancelled based on a communication that the earlier recommendations were unauthorized, leading to termination of services.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the cancellation was based on an internal communication questioning the authenticity of the recommendation without providing an opportunity to the affected candidates to be heard, which was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the service rules.
Issues:
Whether the termination of probationary appointment on the ground of unauthorized recommendations was lawful without giving an opportunity of hearing to the candidates.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that where appointments are made on the basis of valid recommendations by a competent selection board, subsequent cancellation on the basis of an internal note questioning such recommendations without affording a hearing is not permissible, and the action is bad.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
(A) The Service Rules governing appointments to civil engineering positions in local self-government bodies mandate that selections made by the competent authority through a constituted Service Selection Board must be based on proper, authorized recommendations reflected in official records. The rules require that eligibility, qualification, and reserved category status as per the advertisement must be validated through a formal recommendation process documented in the selection board's proceedings. Where the selection board has recommended candidates for appointment, any subsequent cancellation or termination of such appointments must adhere strictly to the prescribed procedure, ensuring procedural fairness.
(B) Key legal principles include the requirement of authorized recommendations in appointments, the procedural safeguards under service rules, and the non-availability of opportunities for hearing prior to termination vitiating the action as being against principles of natural justice.
Facts of the case:
A reserved category candidate qualified in engineering and applied for a Junior Engineer position as per a dated advertisement. He was selected based on recommendations by the Service Selection Board and appointed on probation. After nine months, his appointment was cancelled based on a communication that the earlier recommendations were unauthorized, leading to termination of services.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the cancellation was based on an internal communication questioning the authenticity of the recommendation without providing an opportunity to the affected candidates to be heard, which was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the service rules.
Issues:
Whether the termination of probationary appointment on the ground of unauthorized recommendations was lawful without giving an opportunity of hearing to the candidates.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that where appointments are made on the basis of valid recommendations by a competent selection board, subsequent cancellation on the basis of an internal note questioning such recommendations without affording a hearing is not permissible, and the action is bad.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. The petitioner complains that he being a qualified candidate with Diploma in Engineering and Secondary Education had applied for the post of Oversear/Junior Engineer (Civil Engineering) as per the advertisement dated April 30,1991 published in daily Tarun Bharat on May 2, 1991. The advertisement indicated that of the 3 posts, two were reserved for backward classes and one was for general candidates. Petitioner being a reserved class, hailing from the Scheduled Caste, received letter of appointments from the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, in letter No. PWB/EsttI/1108/1/93 dated March 31, 1993 it was stated that a recommendation had been made by Member Secretary, Regional Subordinate Service Selection Board, Nagpur in their letter No.RSB/Nag/1210/M-792/PS-l/92 dated June 15, 1992 that 3 candidates were selected. The names had been repeated and as regards the petitioner, his recommendation letter No. RSB/Nag/1160/M-792/ 1992/PS-I dated July 31, 1992/7.8.92 was said to be issued, by the Member Secretary selecting the petitioner as Junior Engineer (Civil). Pursuant thereto, he came to be appointed as a Junior Engineer with probation for one year. After completion of nine months service, he received the letter dated November 16, 1992 stating therein that the above letters carried unauthorised recommendations; therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The order of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli was impugned by the petitioner and others in the W.P. No. 885/93 in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench claiming that they had been regularly appointed to the posts which were advertised; therefore, their services could not be terminated during the probation period without affording opportunity of hearing in the enquiry. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this special leave petition.
3. Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that when the posts were advertised and the candidates were found eligible, it does not mandate that there should be an interview and selection. Obviously, the Service Selection Board having found the petitioner to be eligible and qualified, recommended him and was accordingly appointed as Junior Engineer, when it was sought to be cancelled on a letter written by Member Secretary of the Service Selection Board, they are entitled to be heard. No such opportunity has ever been given before cancellation of their appointments. It was, therefore, violative of principles of natural justice. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that on their own admission they have merely applied for the post pursuant to an advertisement made for the selection. It is the case of the Selection Board that a regular selection has to be made and selecting the eligible candidates; recommendation for appointment would be made. Therefore, the letter said to be recommended conveying the eligible recommendations were not correct and according to the rules when such being the admitted position, we do not find any fault to cancel the appointments. Under those circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents. However, such things will not be permitted to be kept under the carpet. The State Government is directed to refer the matter to the appropriate State CBI enquiry and the concerned Inspector would make an independent investigation into the matter to find out to who were responsible for such mal-practice committed and it will be open to take appropriate criminal prosecution launched against the culprits.
4. The SLP is dismissed. This order to be communicated to the D.G.P., Maharashtra.
SLP dismissed
***********