Jharkhand High Court
Indu Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 27 of 2004
1. Indu Mishra W/o Koshlendra Kumar Mishra
(a) Rahul Kumar Mishra S/o Koshlendra Kumar Mishra
(b) Bhagyashree
(c) Annushree
(d) Punamshree
(e) Anshika Mishra
All daughters of Koshlendra Kr. Mishra
All R/o Mohalla Puranashahar, Daudnagar, P.S. Daudnagar,
Dist.- Aurangabad.
2. Rajendra Kumar Mehta S/o Laxaman Prasad Mehta R/o-
Daudnagar, Prrnashar, P.S. Daudnagar- District- Aurangabad
3. Naresh Kumar Singh S/o Ramdeo Singh R/o Sadabigha PS
Amilaumna (Obra) District Aurangabad
4. Luxmi Prasad S/o Ramashray Ram R/o Madhopur, P.S. Baruhin,
District- Bhojpur (Ara)
5. Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Ymuna Prasad R/o Madhopur, P.s. Baruhin,
District- Bhojpur (Ara)
6. Upendra Kumar Singh s/o Late Jitan Singh r/o Chirari Bigha
(Ramnagar) P.S. Kachahasha District- Arwal
7. Pankaj Kumar Sinha S/o Chandradeo Singh R/o- Ahiyapur P.S.
Bikram District- Patna
8. Vijay Kumar Akela S/o Radhakrishna Kumar R/o village- Serpur,
P.S. Serpur, District- Nalanda
9. Ajay Kumar S/o Late Jamadar Singh R/o Village- Mahabalipur,
P.S. - Dihul, Dist- Patna.
10.Ramprabesh panday S/o Ram Onkar panday P/O Suhi P/s
Kutumba Dist.- Aurangabad
11.Surendra panday S/O Kapil dev pandey R/o abiggila Devistahan
P/S Buniyadgang Dist- Gaya ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The state of Jharkhand
2. Health Commissioner-cum-secretary, Health Deptt. Govt. of
Jharkhand Nepal House, Main Secretariat Doranda, Ranchi.
3. Health Commissioner-cum Secretary, Health Deptt. Govt. of Bihar
New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. Dy. Secretary Health services, Govt. Jharkhand, Nepal House,
Main secretariat Doranda, Rachi
5. Director-in-chief, Health services, Govt. of Bihar New secretariat,
Bailey Road patna.
6. Civil surgeon, Palamu, Daltanganj, State of jharkhand.
7. Dy. Director (T.B) Health Services, Bihar, Patna
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 3077 of 2007
1. Binod Kumar Gupta, Son of Sri Ramautar Prasad, Resident of
Redma, Rly Colony, P.S. Daltonganj, District- Palamu;
2
2. Idris Ansari, S/o Rehiman Miyan, Resident of Remani Khud, P.S.
Majhiao, District- Garhwa;
3. Dipnarain Singh, S/o Late Bhim Kumar Singh, R/o Budhawar, P.S.
Panki, District- Palamu;
4. Ashok Kumar, S/o Late Gauri Shankar Singh, R/o Nimachak,
Panki, District- Palamu;
5. Vijay Bahadur Mishra, S/o Late Jaganath Mishra, R/o Vill. Sikaria,
P.S. Sasaram, District- Rohtas;
6. Md. Layek Ahshan Mallik, S/o Late Rasik Mallik, R/o Nai
Mohalla, Sahapur, P.S. Chainpur, District- Palamu;
7. Suresh Pandey, S/o Sri Rajendra Pandey, R/o Govindpur, P.S.
Govindpur, District- Nawadah (Bihar);
8. Naliniranjan Tiwari, S/o Sri Dinanath Tiwari, R/o Mohalla Redma,
P.S. Daltonganj, District- Palamu;
9. Md/ Zakaria, S/o Khalil Ahamad Ansari, R/o Muslimnagar,
Daltonganj, District- Palamu;
10.Indradeo Prasad, S/o Late Hardeo Ram, R/o Kubhakal, Semra, P.S.
Chainpur, District- Palamau.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Health Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Main Secretariat, Doranda,
Ranchi;
3. The Health Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Department,
Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna (Bihar);
4. The Deputy Secretary Health Service, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal
House, Main Secretariat, Doranda, Ranchi;
5. The Director in Chief Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna;
6. The Civil Surgeon, Palamu, Daltonganj, State of Jharkhand.
7. The Deputy Director (T.B.), Health Service, Bihar, Patna
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
---
19/07.03.2022 In both these writ petitions, the order dated 30.03.2002 passed
by the respondent no. 2 confirming the order of termination of the
services of the petitioners and other persons dated 30.05.1992 passed
by respondent no. 3 is under challenge. The order dated 30.03.2002 is
contained in Annexure- 13 in W.P.(S) No. 27 of 2004 and Annexure-
14 in W.P.(S) No. 3077 of 2007. The order dated 30.05.1992 is at
Annexure- 11 in both the cases.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners in both the cases that similar issues are
involved in both the cases and therefore, they have been tagged
together. He has advanced his argument by referring to the records of
W.P.(S) No. 27 of 2004 and has submitted that both the cases have
same arguments from the side of the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
impugned order dated 30.03.2002 as well as 30.05.1992 both are
under challenge and the orders have been passed in gross violation of
the judgment, order and directions passed by the Division Bench of
Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench on 05.09.1991 in C.W.J.C.
No. 1956 of 1990 and other analogous cases and also in complete
violation of the judgement and order dated 21.04.1992 passed by the
Hon'ble Full Bench of Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in C.W.J.C.
No. 2950 of 1991 (R) (F.B.). The order passed by the Hon'ble Full
Bench is contained at Annexure- 10 of both the writ petitions and the
aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench is contained at
Annexure- 6 of both the writ petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that so
far as W.P.(S) No. 27 of 2004 is concerned, original petitioner no. 1
and petitioner no. 7 were petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1056 of 1991(R);
petitioner no.6 was one of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 2322 of
1991(R); petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10 were petitioners in
C.W.J.C. No. 1956 of 1990 (R); petitioner no. 9 was petitioner in
C.W.J.C. No. 1394 of 1991 (R) and petitioner no. 11 was one of the
petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 2322 of 1991(R).
So far as W.P.(S) No. 3077 of 2007 is concerned, the petitioner nos. 1
and 7 were petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1956 of 1990(R), petitioner
nos. 2, 3 and 4 were petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1394 of 1991(R) and
petitioner nos. 5 and 8 were petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1056 of
1991(R); petitioner nos. 9 and 10 were petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.
2596 of 1990(R) and C.W.J.C. No. 2321 of 1991(R); petitioner no. 6
was petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2024 of 1990(R).
5. During the course of argument and upon a query by this Court,
it is not in dispute that none of the petitioners of the present case were
party in the Full Bench judgement of Hon'ble Patna High Court which
has been annexed as Annexure- 10 to the writ petition in both the
cases.
6. While referring to the foundational facts of the case, the learned
counsel submits that the petitioners were engaged as daily rated
employees under the establishment of Deputy Director, Tuberculosis,
Health Services, Bihar, Patna (respondent no. 7) and the petitioners
were engaged sometimes in the year 1987 to 1988 and they continued
to work for more than two years uninterruptedly. The State
Government constituted a selection committee for appointment in
T.B., Malaria and Filaria scheme for regular appointment of Class-III
and Class-IV employees under the chairmanship of Deputy Director,
T.B. (respondent no.7) for recruitment of Class-III and Class-IV
employees vide Resolution dated 25.03.1983 (Annexure-1) followed
by a Gazette notification.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter submits that
the power of appointment of Class - III and Class-IV employees was
delegated to respondent no. 7 by the then State Government. He also
submits that a letter was issued under the seal and signature of Joint
Secretary, Health Services, Bihar relating to regularization of services
of daily rated and casual employees who were in regular employment
under T.B. scheme vide memo dated 17.10.1984 empowering
respondent no. 7 for adjustment of daily rated employees in Class-III
and Class - IV in the light of 20 - Point Programme in as much as the
letter dated 25.11.1982 was issued from the office of Director -in-
Chief, Health, Bihar, Patna pursuant to the direction of Commissioner
-cum- Secretary, Bihar, Patna (respondent no. 2). The said letters
dated 17.10.1984 and 25.11.1982 have been annexed as Annexure- 2
series. The counsel further submits that under aforesaid circumstances,
the respondent no. 7 was delegated with the power to appoint
employees in Class-III and Class-IV under two distinct heads; (a)
Regular appointment of Class-III and Class-IV employees under T.B.
scheme by Selection Committee under the chairmanship of
respondent no. 7 constituted by State Government (Annexure-1); and
(b) Regular appointment/adjustment of daily rated employees in
Class-III and Class-IV by respondent no. 7 under the policy decision
of State Government in the light of 20 - Point Programme.
8. It is the specific case of the petitioners that
adjustment/appointment of the petitioners were made in Class-III post
pursuant to the direction of the State Government as contained in
Annexure-2 series by the competent authority. He also submits that
besides there was District Establishment Committee and as such,
appointment of the petitioners was made by Civil Surgeon (respondent
no. 6)- the competent authority because under the circular of
Secretary, Health Services, Bihar followed by Bihar Gazette
Notification, Civil Surgeon was the competent appointing authority of
Class-III and Class-IV employees since 1982. The learned counsel
submits that the petitioners were appointed/adjusted on vacant and
sanctioned posts by following a selection process in accordance with
law on various posts in the year 1989 in the light of the letter issued by
the Office of the Deputy Director (T.B.) as well as on the
recommendation of the selection committee and they continued to
work regularly till June, 1992 without any break and got salaries and
were throughout treated as permanent incumbent when seen in the
light of the service book. The learned counsel submits that the casual
employees, who had been in regular employment for one year, were
liable to be regularized.
9. However, suddenly the authorities stopped making any
payment to the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners filed writ
petitions before this Court. The batch of writ petitions was disposed of
vide order dated 05.09.1991 as contained in Annexure- 6 to the
present writ petitions and the impugned orders were set-aside. It was
directed that the petitioners must be given a reasonable opportunity to
show-cause as to why their appointments cannot be treated as legal
and this decision must be made by the competent authority and as
there was a difference of opinion about the authority who is competent
to pass such order, it was directed that this be considered and disposed
of by Secretary, Health Department himself. Accordingly, the
Secretary, Health Department was directed to decide as to whether the
appointments of the petitioners were legal or illegal, regular or
irregular and on the basis of the same, he was to pass a final speaking
order. The Secretary, Health Department was directed to take into
consideration all the relevant facts including the fact that the
petitioners had been allowed to work and they were paid salary until
one year back. It was also directed that the decision was to be given by
a speaking order and this was directed to be done after giving a
personal hearing to the petitioners and the departmental officials. It
was also directed that in the meantime, the petitioners would be paid
salaries for the period of work they have actually done.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter,
another order was passed by Full Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court
as contained in Annexure- 10 to the present writ petitions, wherein
similar direction was passed and the decision was to be taken by
speaking order and communicated to the petitioners of the Full Bench
matter by 31.05.1992 with a clear rider that if no such decision is
taken within such time, then the services of the petitioners of the Full
Bench matter shall not be terminated on the ground that their
appointment was illegal. The learned counsel submits that the order of
the Hon'ble Full Bench has not been complied in view of the fact that
no show-cause as such was issued to the petitioners and the petitioners
were declared to be illegal appointees vide impugned order dated
30.05.1992. The learned counsel submits that the authority, while
passing the order dated 30.05.1992, has not taken note of the
judgement passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench at Annexure-6 and
which was passed by Hon'ble Full Bench on 21.04.1992 (Annexure-
10). The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no. 3 did
not issue any show-cause to the petitioners. He also submits that the
petitioners filed representation to the Health Directorate, Patna to
consider their grievance in the light of the direction of the Hon'ble
Court and the representation was also sent to Director-in-Chief of the
Health Services on 05.06.1997 and consequently, the other impugned
order dated 30.03.2002 confirming the earlier order of termination
dated 30.05.1992 (Annexure-11) was passed.
11. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has placed the impugned order dated 30.05.1992 and while
referring to the impugned order, it clearly indicated that the reason for
holding the appointment of the petitioners illegal was that the
petitioners were appointed without any advertisement, without roster
clearance, without preparation of any list of selected candidates,
without following the reservation policy, no names were called for
from employment exchange, very few people were selected from
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories and the posts were
not sanctioned.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to the
impugned order, has submitted that the petitioners were selected by a
Selection Committee and that the case of the petitioners was that of
regularization as they had been working right from the year 1987-88.
However, during the course of argument, no material has been put
forth from the side of the petitioners that they were working since
1987-88 except a bald statement in the writ petitions which has been
disputed by the respondents in their counter-affidavit.
13. In the entire writ petitions, none of the grounds which is a
reason for holding the appointment of the petitioners as illegal, is
under challenge and the only point which has been argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that the orders passed by this
Court have not been followed.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondents
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents has opposed the prayer and has relied upon the
judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State
of Bihar and Others Vs. Devendra Sharma" reported in (2020) 15
SCC 466. By referring to the aforesaid judgement, he submits that the
present cases are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and
these cases are also the matters of illegal appointment in the Health
Department of the State of Bihar. He has, in particular, referred to para
44 of the judgement to submit that the appointments which were made
without any sanctioned post, without any advertisement giving
opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and seek public
employment and without any method of recruitment, are illegal
appointments and are backdoor entries and an act of nepotism and
favoritisms. He submits that as the appointment itself is illegal, there
is no question of any regularization and such appointment cannot be
said to be irregular appointment rather they are illegal appointment.
15. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that
the statement made by the petitioners that they were working since
1987-88, as mentioned in para 5, has been clearly responded to by the
respondents that the petitioners were neither engaged nor worked in
the T.B. Department. He submits that the present case is a clear case
of illegal appointment and accordingly, no relief be granted to the
petitioners.
Findings of this Court
16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, this Court finds
that there is nothing on record from the side of the petitioners to
suggest that they had been working in the T.B. Department and
engaged by the department during the period 1987-88 and this fact
stated by the writ petitioners in the writ petition has been denied by
the respondents in the counter affidavit.
17. This Court further finds that the petitioners claim to have been
appointed pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 25.03.1983 as
contained in Annexure- 1 in the light of the 20 - Point Programme
issued vide letter no. 386 dated 25.11.1982 by the Director-in-Chief,
Health, Bihar, Patna as contained in Annexure- 2.
18. This Court also finds that pursuant to the aforesaid documents
as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 series, the petitioners claimed to
have been appointed/adjusted on vacant sanctioned posts by following
the selection process in accordance with law on the recommendation
of the Selection Committee. While referring to the appointment letters,
as contained in Annexure-3, it appears that the Selection Committee
was headed by the Civil Surgeon. This Court finds that when the
petitioners were terminated in the year 1992, they had filed writ
petition before Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in C.W.J.C.
No. 1956 of 1990(R) and other analogous cases, which was disposed
of vide Annexure- 6 of the writ petitions and the impugned order was
set-aside by the court and the matter was remitted to the Secretary,
Health Department to decide as to whether the appointment of the
petitioners were illegal, regular or irregular after giving a reasonable
opportunity to show-cause as to why their appointments cannot be
treated as legal.
19. From perusal of the impugned order dated 30.05.1992, it
appears that the consolidated order was passed in compliance of
various orders passed by this Court. Before passing the impugned
order dated 30.05.1992, the candidates were directed to explain and
produce before the authority regarding the advertisement, interview,
selection committee, educational qualification, and documents
regarding daily wages etc. It has also been recorded in the order dated
30.05.1992 that a number of persons had appeared and they had
prayed for time on the ground that the matter was under consideration
before the Hon'ble Full Bench and as the timeframe was fixed by this
court while disposing off the writ petition, the order dated 30.05.1992
was passed, interalia, on the ground that there was neither any
advertisement nor any roster clearance nor the Selection Committee
was constituted nor the selection list was prepared nor the reservation
policy was followed nor the names of candidates were called for from
the employment exchange and nor the posts were sanctioned and only
a few candidates were there from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes community.
20. This Court finds that the petitioners have not been able to put
any material before this Court on record to suggest that the aforesaid
essential requirement for a valid selection process was followed in the
present cases. The petitioners have further not been able to show any
material before this court to show that they have been working as
daily rated employees, much less daily rated employees against vacant
sanctioned post. In fact, the claim of the petitioners that they have
been working as daily rated employees since 1987-88 is disputed by
the respondents. The earliest material of their engagement is of the
year 1989 as contained in annexure- 3 series for which neither
selection procedure as per law was followed nor the selection was
made against vacant sanctioned posts. The petitioners have not been
able to show any material even before this court so as to call for
interference in the impugned orders whereby the appointments of the
petitioners have been declared illegal or show any material to entitle
them for regularization.
21. This Court is of the considered view that refusal to participate
in the proceedings on the ground that the matter was pending before
Hon'ble Full Bench was not a justified ground. This Court also finds
that in absence of the aforesaid basic requirement of a valid selection
process, which were neither produced before the authorities nor have
been produced before this Court, the impugned order dated
30.05.1992 holding that the appointments are illegal, is absolutely
justified. So far as the other impugned order dated 30.03.2002
(Annexure- 13) confirming the termination order dated 30.05.1992 is
concerned, there is no illegality or perversity in the said order.
22. It is also important to note that the matter regarding illegal
appointment in the Health Department of the State of Bihar, with
which we are concerned in these writ petitions, was subject matter of
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Ashwani Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others"
reported in (1997) 2 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that the
recruitments made by Dr. Mallick in Class-III and Class-IV posts in
Health Department in the Government of Bihar till the year 1990 or so
were arbitrary, capricious, null and void and the said judgment was
passed after considering the government order dated 03.12.1980 as
well as the government resolution dated 25.03.1983 (Annexure-1)
which is also being relied upon by the petitioners in the present
proceedings. In the said case also, the matter of appointment of Class-
III and IV employees under Tuberculosis Centre, a 20-point
Programme was under consideration. The factual background, as
stated in the aforesaid judgment, is summarized as under: -
"One Dr A.A. Mallick, Deputy Director, an officer of the
Health Department of the Government of Bihar, was the
Director of the Tuberculosis Centre at Patna. Eradication of
Tuberculosis was taken up as a part of 20-Point Programme in
planned expenditure. The activities in the Tuberculosis Centre
at Patna were extended to various districts. Dr Mallick was
made also the Deputy Director of the Tuberculosis
Eradication Scheme. The Government constituted a Selection
Committee with Dr Mallick as Chairman to recruit 2250 Class
III and Class IV employees on posts created to implement the
Scheme in addition to around 800 to 900 staff in the Patna
Centre in all categories. Taking advantage thereof, Dr.
Mallick appointed 6000 persons without any written orders.
Pursuant to High Court's order an Enquiry Committee was
constituted to examine whether the said appointments were
valid and whether salaries could be paid to such employees.
The Committee found the initial appointments to be in
violation of the Government instructions and, therefore,
illegal. The Government accepted the Committee's findings
and cancelled all the appointments. The High Court upheld the
action of the Government. Hence, the said appointees
approached the Supreme Court. Three questions arose before
the Supreme Court. The first one was whether the said
appointments were legal and valid. The appellants contended,
inter alia, that the procedure contained in Government order
dated 3-12-1980 was not applicable to the appointments in
questions and that it was the Government Resolution dated 25-
3-1983 which would apply."
The said contention was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It
has been held that the government order of 03.12.1980 which dealt
with the recruitment procedure under Bihar State Service would
apply also to those recruitments under 20-point scheme for
eradication of malaria, filaria and tuberculosis. While interpreting the
resolution dated 25.03.1983, it was held that it never gave a blanket
power to create a new post which were not sanctioned and to make
recruitments thereon nor did it give any authority to throw the
procedure for recruitment in Class-III and IV and to make
recruitment in arbitrary manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the resolution dated 25.03.1983 has to be read along with
government order dated 03.12.1980 which deals with the recruitment
procedure and supersession of previous orders as contemplated by
resolution dated 25.03.1983 was only to a limited extent and the
procedure for recruitment remained the same even for newly
constituted Selection Committee.
23. The aforesaid judgement was again considered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court while rejecting the claim of regularization to Class-III
and Class-IV posts in Health Department in the State of Bihar in the
judgement reported in (2020) 15 SCC 466 (Supra) and it has been
held that the induction was itself illegal. Paragraphs 29, 30, 31, 33, 34
and 44 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted as under:
"29. On the basis of the abovesaid circulars and the government
orders, it is argued that the appointing authority of Class III and
Class IV posts is Director, Health Services. However, there was
some delegation in respect of certain other administrative
matters but there was no delegation in respect of appointment
against Class III and Class IV category posts. The powers
conferred on Assistant Director in terms of Clause 13(c) of
Chapter I of the Bihar Health Manual empowers Assistant
Director (Public Health) to appoint non-gazetted epidemic staff
like Health Assistants and Vaccinators against sanctioned posts
but only in case of emergency. A finding has been recorded in
Ashwani Kumar that 2250 posts were sanctioned whereas 6000
appointments were made. The tuberculosis eradication under the
20-Point Programme was not an emergency activity which may
empower the Assistant Director to make large number of
appointments but again such emergent powers could be exercised
only in respect of sanctioned posts.
30. The exception in respect of appointing authority came with
the Circular dated 3-12-1980 which contemplated that suitable
candidates be selected as per requirement from common merit
list by the competent authorities of Secretariat and attached
offices; District Collector and equivalent officer in charge of the
divisional offices. Dr Mallick, Deputy Director in the subordinate
offices of the Directorate of Health Services was not competent to
make appointments against Category III or Category IV posts in
view of the provisions of the Manual as also in terms of the
Circular dated 3-12-1980 recorded by this Court in Ashwani
Kumar as well.
31. Though, certain appointments have been made by the Civil
Surgeon which Mr. Mukherjee does not dispute as he was the
competent authority but it is argued that none of the
requirements to fill up the public post was adhered to.
Appointments were made to the public posts without following
any procedure and without there being any sanctioned post.
33. In Ashwani Kumar, this Court has dealt with the
appointments made against Class III and IV category posts in the
Health Department itself. The reasoning recorded therein is that
the appointments have been proved to be made not against the
sanctioned posts and in a manner, which is wholly arbitrary,
capricious and, therefore, employees will not get any right to
seek regularization of their services.
34. In civil appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20033 of 2012,
the respondent was appointed by Dr A.A. Mallick. Such
appointments have been found to be illegal by this Court in
Ashwani Kumar. We find that there is no reason to re-examine
the appointments made by Dr A.A. Mallick. Such appointments
have been adversely commented upon in Ashwani Kumar case.
44. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it cannot be said that the
appointment of the employees in the present set of appeals were
irregular appointments. Such appointments are illegal
appointment in terms of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment
in Umadevi (3). As such appointments were made without any
sanctioned post, without any advertisement giving opportunity to
all eligible candidates to apply and seek public employment and
without any method of recruitment. Such appointments were back
door entries, an act of nepotism and favouritism and thus from
any judicial standards cannot be said to be irregular
appointments but are illegal appointments in wholly arbitrary
process."
24. In view of the aforesaid judgements and in absence of any
material from the side of the petitioners produced before the
authorities whose order is under challenge and also no such material
having been produced before this Court, the basic requirements of a
legal appointment are not at all satisfied and rather, the entire selection
process through which the petitioners were inducted are void and
illegal and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in these
writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.
25. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
