2002 JTR(SC) 574
2002 AIR(SC) 2426 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 1057 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 2658 ; 2002 2 AllCJ 1169 ; 2002 2 AWC 1598 ; 2002 2 BBCJ(SC) 25 ; 2002 2 CLR 406 ; 2002 93 FLR 971 ; 2002 2 JCR(SC) 166 ; 2002 2 JLJR(SC) 231 ; 2002 4 JT 467 ; 2002 LIC 2324 ; 2002 2 LLJ 1057 ; 2002 2 LLN 912 ; 2002 3 PLJR(SC) 62 ; 2002 4 Scale 228 ; 2002 4 SCC 503 ; 2002 SCC(L&S) 582 ; 2002 3 SCR 609 ; 2002 2 SCT 1058 ; 2002 4 SLR 85 ; 2002 2 UJ 905 ; 2002 2 UPLBEC 1582 ; 2002 KHC 1671 ; 2002 4 Supreme 405
2002(4) Supreme 405
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gauhati High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Ajay Kumar Das & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3150 of 2002
With
C.A. Nos. 3151-3152 of 2002
(@ SLP (C) Nos. 6796-6797 of 2001)
C.A.No. 3153 of 2002
(@ SLP (C) No. 876 of 2002)
C.A.No. 3154 of 2002
(@ SLP (C) No. 4396 of 2002)
C.A.No. 3155 of 2002
SLP (C) No. 4395 of 2002
C.A.No. 3156 of 2002
(@ SLP (C) No. 4398 of 2002)
C.A.No. 3157 of 2002
(@ SLP (C) No. 4897 of 2002)
Decided on 29-4-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : S. Rajappa, Advocate.
For the Respondents : A.R. Barthakur, Sr. Advocate, Suresh C. Gupta, A. Guneshwar Sharma, Sanjay Pal, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Vipul Gupta, Ms. Lalita Kaushik, S.K. Nandy, S.M. Sarkar, B.B. Sinha, R.C. Verma, S.C. Patel, Rakesh K. Khanna, Brahm Dutt, Reetesh Singh, Surya Kant, Advocates.
For the Respondent in C.A.No. 3153/2002 : Ashim Paul-in-person.
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Appointments of respondents by a dismissed officer of appellant were invalid. There would be no violation of principles of natural justice if the appellant quashed such invalid appointments without giving notice to the appointees.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
(A) The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was invoked in this matter through special leave petitions challenging orders of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The impugned orders pertained to the appointment of respondents as LDCs based on issuance of appointment letters by an Assistant Commissioner whose services had already been terminated, rendering the appointment orders void ab initio. The scrutiny of the orders of appointment, set aside by the High Court on interim directions, and the subsequent orders of termination and dismissal squarely fall within the sweep of Article 136 as the case involves substantial questions of law relating to service and recruitment matters.
(B) An appointment made by an authority who no longer holds office or whose services stand terminated is null and void. Principles of natural justice do not apply to a nullity, and the validity of appointment is not contingent upon compliance with procedural safeguards where the appointing authority lacked locus standi from the outset. Interim orders of courts cannot be exploited to validate irregular appointments, and the doctrine of nullity renders subsequent administrative action futile.
Facts of the case:
The appellant issued an advertisement for 12 posts of LDCs and appointed respondents through an Assistant Commissioner after his services were terminated. The appointment letters were issued post-termination, and an enquiry report highlighted serious irregularities in recruitment. The respondents were dismissed, and their challenge led to an interim order, which was later vacated. The dismissal was set aside by the Tribunal, but the High Court dismissed the petition. The appeals were preferred to this Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the appointment was made by an authority without valid authority due to termination of services, rendering the appointment a nullity. The High Court and the Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the appointing authority lacked power to make appointment, and the question of observance of natural justice was inapplicable.
Issues:
Whether the appointment made by a terminated Assistant Commissioner was valid; whether principles of natural justice were attracted in a nullity; whether interim orders of the High Court could be used to validate such appointments; whether the respondents were entitled to relief.
Ratio Decidendi:
An appointment issued by an authority after the termination of his services is void and of no legal effect. Consequently, the respondents could not claim any rights under such appointment orders, and the High Court and the Tribunal were correct in setting aside the impugned orders and dismissing the applications.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside, and the applications filed by the respondents are dismissed with no costs.
(A) The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was invoked in this matter through special leave petitions challenging orders of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The impugned orders pertained to the appointment of respondents as LDCs based on issuance of appointment letters by an Assistant Commissioner whose services had already been terminated, rendering the appointment orders void ab initio. The scrutiny of the orders of appointment, set aside by the High Court on interim directions, and the subsequent orders of termination and dismissal squarely fall within the sweep of Article 136 as the case involves substantial questions of law relating to service and recruitment matters.
(B) An appointment made by an authority who no longer holds office or whose services stand terminated is null and void. Principles of natural justice do not apply to a nullity, and the validity of appointment is not contingent upon compliance with procedural safeguards where the appointing authority lacked locus standi from the outset. Interim orders of courts cannot be exploited to validate irregular appointments, and the doctrine of nullity renders subsequent administrative action futile.
Facts of the case:
The appellant issued an advertisement for 12 posts of LDCs and appointed respondents through an Assistant Commissioner after his services were terminated. The appointment letters were issued post-termination, and an enquiry report highlighted serious irregularities in recruitment. The respondents were dismissed, and their challenge led to an interim order, which was later vacated. The dismissal was set aside by the Tribunal, but the High Court dismissed the petition. The appeals were preferred to this Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the appointment was made by an authority without valid authority due to termination of services, rendering the appointment a nullity. The High Court and the Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the appointing authority lacked power to make appointment, and the question of observance of natural justice was inapplicable.
Issues:
Whether the appointment made by a terminated Assistant Commissioner was valid; whether principles of natural justice were attracted in a nullity; whether interim orders of the High Court could be used to validate such appointments; whether the respondents were entitled to relief.
Ratio Decidendi:
An appointment issued by an authority after the termination of his services is void and of no legal effect. Consequently, the respondents could not claim any rights under such appointment orders, and the High Court and the Tribunal were correct in setting aside the impugned orders and dismissing the applications.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside, and the applications filed by the respondents are dismissed with no costs.
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Babu, J.-Leave granted in all the SLPs.
2. The services of one Dr. K.C. Rakesh, Assistant Commissioner of the appellant s Regional Office in Guwahati stood terminated by an order made on December 11, 1997.
3. An advertisement had been issued on 26.10.1996 for filling up 12 posts of LDCs. Certain tests were held on different dates and letters of appointment were issued on 13/15 December, 1997 by the said Dr. K.C. Rakesh to the respondents and they were duly appointed. On the order terminating the services of the said Dr. K.C. Rakesh, a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi which came to be ultimately dismissed. An interim order had been made in the said writ petition and the same was vacated by the Delhi High Court by an order made on 4.2.1998. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
".....taking advantage of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has issued various orders. Whatever orders passed by the petitioner after the termination order issued by the respondents will be treated as null and void and they will have absolutely no legal effect. The respondent will act as if there are not such orders passed by the petitioner after the termination order was passed."
4. In addition to that, an enquiry was conducted into certain allegations of irregularities regarding recruitment to teaching and non-teaching posts made by the said Dr. K.C. Rakesh. The Enquiry Report clearly indicated that there were several irregularities in the matter of recruitment. Bearing these aspects in mind and considering the fact that the appointment orders have been issued by the said Dr. K.C. Rakesh, when he had been dismissed, the authorities put an end to the services of the respondents by an order made on 19.2.1998 by adverting to the vacation of the interim order to which we have already referred to. This order was challenged by the respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench [hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ]. The Tribunal set aside the order dated 19.2.1998 on the ground that the respondents were not parties to the writ proceedings and identical orders had been issued in the case of persons who had been selected without observing the principles of natural justice. When the matter was carried by way of writ petition to the High Court, the same having been dismissed, the appellants have approached this Court in these appeals by special leave.
5. The narration of the facts made above, make it clear that the respondents were appointed by the said Dr. K.C. Rakesh, Assistant Commissioner, Guwahati when his services had been terminated and his continuation in service itself was under a cloud and in an inquiry serious lapses had been noticed in the matter of recruitment. It is clear that if after the termination of services of the said Dr. K.C. Rakesh, the orders of appointment are issued, such orders are not valid. If such appointment orders are a nullity, the question of observance of principles of natural justice would not arise. Even though, the respondents may not have been a party to the proceedings before the High Court, it is clear that if the appointing authority itself did not have power to make appointment by reason of termination of his services, it is futile to contend that the respondents should have been served with notices in that regard. Dr. K.C. Rakesh issued appointment orders on his services having been put an end to on December 11, 1997 by issuance of orders of appointment dated December 13/15, 1997. On the pretext that the order of termination of his services had not been served upon him it cannot be contended that the appointments of the respondents would be valid.
6. In the circumstances, we are of the view that neither the High Court nor the Tribunal examined the matter in the right perspective. We, therefore, set aside the orders made by the High Court and the Tribunal and dismiss the original applications filed by the respondents before the Tribunal. These appeals will stand allowed accordingly. No costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeals allowed accordingly.
**************