Service Law – Appointments – Legality of – Writ petitioners before High Court had joined the service of State of Bihar under the orders made by the concerned Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer of the district – It was alleged that none of the writ petitioners was appointed through a proper legal recruitment process – The State Government having found that large number of appointments were made on the basis of false or forged documents, without following due process of recruitment and mostly without the appointment orders, cancelled such appointments and the concerned incumbents were discharged from service – Writ petitions before the High Court with specific prayer to regularize service and to set aside the order of termination of services – Allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held: The writ petitioners were the beneficiaries of illegal orders made by the Civil-cum-Chief Medical Officer – They were given notice to establish the genuineness of their appointment and to show cause – None of them were able to establish the genuineness or legality of their appointment before the State Committee – The State Committee on appreciation of the materials on record had opined that their appointment was illegal and void ab initio – There were no grounds to disagree with the said finding of the State Committee – In the circumstances, the question of regularisation of their services did not arise, since the appointment of the petitioners was ab initio void, they were not the civil servants of the State.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: In the instant cases, the writ petitioners have filed the petitions before the High Court with a specific prayer to regularize their service and to set aside the order of termination of their services. They have also challenged the report submitted by the State Committee. The real controversy is whether the writ petitioners were legally and validly appointed. The finding of the State Committee is that many writ petitioners had secured appointment by producing fake or forged appointment letter or had been inducted in Government service surreptitiously by concerned Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer by issuing a posting order. The writ petitioners are the beneficiaries of illegal orders made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer. They were given notice to establish the genuineness of their appointment and to show cause. None of them could establish the genuineness or legality of their appointment before the State Committee. The State Committee on appreciation of the materials on record has opined that their appointment was illegal and void ab initio. There is no ground to disagree with the finding of the State Committee. In the circumstances, the question of regularisation of their services by invoking of the judgment in Umadevi does not arise. Since the appointment of the petitioners is ab initio void, they cannot be said to be the civil servants of the State. Therefore, holding disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution or under any other disciplinary rules shall not arise. [Para 17][413-E-H; 414-A] Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi
(3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 ; State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 : [2011] 2 SCR 704 – relied on.
State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others (2010) 9 SCC 24 ; State of Bihar v. Purendra Sulan Kit 2006 (3) PLJR 386 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.