Madras High Court
The Director Cum Appointing Authority vs E.Suresh on 28 October, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 2855 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:28.10.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 2855 of 2025
AND
CMP.No. 23058 of 2025
1.The Director cum Appointing Authority,
National Institute of Empowerment of Persons (NIEPMD)
E.C.R Muttukadu, Kovalam Post,
Chennai-600112.
2.The Joint Secretary to Government of India,
Department of Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities (Divyangien)
Minister of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Paryavaram Bhavan,
5th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. The Under Secretary to Govt. Of India
Department of Empower of Persons
and Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice
of Empowerment, 5th Floor, B-Wing
PT Deenadayal Antyadaya Bhavan,
CGO Complex, New Delhi-110. ..Appellants
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
W.A No. 2855 of 2025
Vs
E.Suresh ..Respondent
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 22.11.2023 passed in W.P.No. 14398 of 2020.
For Appellants : Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, ASG
Assisted by M/s.R.Durga Rani.
For Respondent : M/s. P.V.Rajeswari
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-court appeal assails the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 14398 of 2020. By the said order, the learned
Single Judge set aside the order passed by appellant No. 3 herein, terminating
the services of the petitioner to the post of Rehabilitation Officer, on the ground
that the selection process suffered from irregularities and illegalities. The
learned Judge further directed the appellants to reinstate the petitioner into
service, however, without back wages but with other service and attendant
benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
2. The first respondent had issued a recruitment notification inviting
applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of
Rehabilitation Officer (Social Work), prescribing the essential qualifications.
The respondent/writ petitioner, claiming to be fully qualified and eligible,
submitted his application for consideration along with other candidates. Upon
scrutiny, the petitioner was found eligible for appointment to the said post, as
per Official Memorandum dated 03.02.2015. Clause IV of the said
Memorandum stipulated that the appointee would be on probation for a period
of two years from the date of joining, which period might be extended at the
discretion of the competent authority. It further provided that failure to comply
with the prescribed procedures or to perform to the satisfaction of the
competent authority during the probation period would render the appointee
liable to discharge from service.
3. Pursuant thereto, office orders dated 22.03.2015 were issued
appointing the respondent/writ petitioner to the said post, and his appointment
was governed by the terms and conditions set out in the Official Memorandum
dated 03.02.2015. The respondent/writ petitioner accordingly joined duty and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
discharged his functions in the said post. However, by order dated 03.02.2017,
his services were terminated on the ground that his appointment was irregular.
Aggrieved by the said termination, the respondent/writ petitioner approached
this Court in W.P. No. 14398 of 2020. The learned Single Judge, upon due
consideration, set aside the termination order. Taking exception to the same, the
present writ appeal has been preferred.
4. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing
for the appellants, submitted that there was no necessity to issue a show-cause
notice once the appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner was found to be
irregular or illegal. He further contended that Clause IV of the Official
Memorandum dated 03.02.2015 clearly empowered the competent authority to
terminate the services of the appointee if the selection process was vitiated by
irregularities or illegalities. Without prejudice, he submitted that in the event
this Court finds that the termination order was passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice, liberty may be reserved to the appellants to initiate
proceedings afresh, in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
5. In response, Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the
respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that the appointment of the
respondent/writ petitioner was made strictly in accordance with the recruitment
notification, and no fault could be attributed to him. He contended that several
other candidates who had participated in the selection process and attended the
interview did not possess the basic qualification of a bachelor’s degree in
Social Work. The petitioner alone satisfied all the requirements of the
recruitment notification and was, therefore, rightly appointed. It was argued
that the learned Single Judge, having considered all relevant aspects, rightly set
aside the termination order, which does not warrant interference by this Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the
materials placed on record.
7. The recruitment notification prescribed that the candidate must possess
a bachelor’s degree in Social Work from a recognized University/Institution,
have five years’ experience in a reputed organization engaged in the field of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
disability, and possess experience in computer applications in day-to-day work.
It was further stated that it would be desirable, though not mandatory, for the
candidate to possess a master’s degree in Social Work, to have published a
book in a peer-reviewed format, or to have completed a diploma/certificate
course in a disability-related area. Thus, the fundamental qualification under
the recruitment notification was the possession of a bachelor’s degree in Social
Work.
8. In the instant case, the respondent/writ petitioner was selected to the
said post on the basis that he possessed a bachelor’s degree in Social Work, the
essential qualification. Other candidates, on the contrary, did not possess a
bachelor’s degree in Social Work , but bachelor’s degree in a different
discipline, and possessed a master’s degree which was merely desirable .
While the respondent/writ petitioner was serving in the post, his services were
terminated on the ground that certain irregularities had occurred in the
selection process, as detailed in paragraph 8 of the termination order, which
reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
“8. Whereas, the CAG during the annual audit at NIEPMD
accounts and records has also observed that "a total number of
34 applications were received (in response to 02/2014) out of
which 17 candidates possessed with Masters degree in Social
Work (MSW) and 8 were possessing with M.A. in Social Work.
However, out of 25 applicants having Masters Degree, only two
applicants were considered for issuance of call letter i.e., one
having Master Degree and other one who possess Bachelors
Degree (the appointed candidate). Further, amongst the applied
candidates, one who possessed the Bachelor Degree was not
considered. Further, out of two candidates considered for
selection, only one candidate appeared for interview who is
subsequently recruited to that post. The above lapses clearly
indicate a major level of violation in recruitment of the eligible
candidate of recruitment in such post. The reason for non-
consideration of applicants possessing Master degree was not
recorded in the recruitment rule. This is brought to the notice of
the Ministry for their remarks regarding the violation in
recruitment after detailed enquiry.” The CAG has made this as an
outstanding audit paragraph and still the audit observation
sustains, pending settlement. The observation of the CAG will be
settled only after action is taken on it by the Institute / DEPWD.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
9. The appellants contend that the qualification prescribed for the post of
Rehabilitation Officer (Social Work) was amended to suit a particular
candidate, without obtaining the approval of the Executive Council. It is their
case that, under the unamended rules, the essential qualification prescribed was
a Master’s Degree in Social Work, and that it was only desirable that the
candidate possess two years’ experience in working with persons with
disabilities.
10. However, a perusal of the impugned termination order reveals that
the said order was not passed on the aforesaid ground. On the contrary, the
termination was founded upon the reasons enumerated in paragraph 8 of the
impugned order. It is a well-settled principle of law that a quasi-judicial or
administrative order must stand or fall on the reasons recorded therein. The
validity of such an order cannot be sustained or supplemented by reasons
furnished subsequently in an affidavit or a counter statement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
11. Moreover, the appellants have not placed on record the alleged
unamended qualification prescribed for appointment to the said post. In the
absence of such material evidence, the contention that the qualifications were
altered without approval of the Executive Council remains unsubstantiated.
Consequently, the appellants cannot seek to justify interference with the
appointment of the writ petitioner to the said post on that basis.
12. As regards the reasons cited in paragraph 8 of the termination order,
it is evident that the writ petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing
prior to the termination of his services. The writ petitioner had already been
appointed to the post after due selection and, therefore, had acquired a vested
right to continue in service, subject to the conditions of probation. Such a
vested right cannot be unilaterally taken away, especially when it entails civil
consequences. Hence, the termination of the writ petitioner’s services without
notice or hearing constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
13. It is trite law that the edifice of service jurisprudence rests upon the
foundational principles of fairness, equality, and transparency. Any
administrative action that infringes these principles is liable to be struck down
as arbitrary and unsustainable in law. In the present case, the learned Single
Judge was, therefore, justified in setting aside the order of termination on the
ground of violation of natural justice.
14. However, we find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the
appellants that the learned Single Judge ought to have reserved liberty to the
appellants to initiate proceedings afresh, by providing an opportunity of hearing
to the writ petitioner and by passing a reasoned order on merits and in
accordance with law. To this limited extent, the impugned order warrants
interference.
15. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed in part. Consequently,
connected Miscellenous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is sustained, subject to
the modification that the appellants shall be at liberty to initiate fresh
proceedings, if they so desire, strictly in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
16. It is made clear that any fresh proceedings to be initiated, if at all,
shall be confined only to examining the question of irregularities, if any, in the
selection process, and such proceedings shall be in conformity with Clause IV
of the Official Memorandum dated 03.02.2015. The issue as to whether the
alleged irregularities in the selection process would fall within the ambit of
Clause IV is kept open to be decided in those proceedings.
17. It is further clarified that any such proceedings shall not pertain to the
alleged amendment of the qualification prescribed for the post, which,
according to the appellants, was done without prior approval of the Executive
Council.
18. The appellants are directed to reinstate the writ petitioner into service
within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
(R.S.K. J.,) (H.C. J.,)
28.10.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
28.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 05:55:09 pm )
