Service Law:
Appointment – Without approval of competent authority – Termination of service – Without affording opportunity of hearing – Propriety of – Held: Prior approval of competent authority for appointment was mandatory as per service rules and executive instructions – Therefore, appointment without prior approval of competent authority, suffers from the vice of lack of authority and nullify in law – The appointment being a nullity there was no question of observance of principles of natural justice before termination of such appointment – Central Cattle Breeding Forum (Class III and IV Post) Recruitment Rules, 1969- Principle of Natural Justice. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The recruitment procedure in relation to the post of Veterinary Compounder is governed by the statutory rules titled ‘Central Cattle Breeding Farms (Class III and Class IV posts) Recruitment Rules, 1969, as amended from time to time and including the executive instructions issued in that behalf. As per the stated dispensation for such recruitment, the appointment letter could be issued only by an authorised officer and after grant of approval by the competent authority. Even if it is assumed that the then Director Incharge had the authority to issue a letter of appointment. Nevertheless, he could do so only upon obtaining prior written approval of the of the competent authority. No case has been made out in the Original Application that due approval was granted by the competent authority before issue of the letter of appointment to the respondent. [Paras 1617] [1025-G-H; 1026-C-D]
2. In absence of prior approval of the competent authority, the Director Incharge could not have hastened issuance of the appointment letter. The act of commission and omission of the then Director Incharge would, therefore, suffer from the vice of lack of authority and nullity in law. [Para 17] [1026-E]
3. The subject office order dated 29.08.2000 opens with the statement that the same was issued in compliance with the Ministry’s decision vide letter No.8-6/1999-ADMN.III dt. 18.08.2000. By reference to the said communication-cum-decision of the Ministry, it stood incorporated in the subject office order. Besides, the subject office order explicitly states that the appointment of the respondent was illegally made by the then Director Incharge. This reason of illegal appointment takes within its fold the unilateral constitution of the Selection Board (not in accordance with the prescribed constitution of the selection Board) and also the Director Incharge nominating himself as the Chairman of such Board, although disqualified to be on the Board because the candidate was related to him. As a result, the Ministry took holistic decision, after reckoning all aspects of the matter including that it was not just a solitary appointment of the respondent, but also other appointment letters issued by him under his signature. All such appointments made by him came under the scanner as being fraudulent and without authority. Such appointments would obviously be a nullity in law. [Para 18] [1026F-H; 1027-A-B]
4. If the appointment letters are nullity, having been issued by an officer who did not wield authority to do so, there was no question of observance of principles of natural justice even though the affected party was not before the Court. The mere fact that such letter of appointment had been issued in favour of the respondent does not bestow any right in his favour much less to insist for an opportunity of being heard. In the fact situation of the present case, giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent before issuance of the subject office order was not an essential requirement and it would be an exercise in futility. [Paras 19, 22 and 27] [1027-C-D; 1030-A; 1031-G]
5. The High Court has not analysed the efficacy of the crucial reason recorded in the subject office order in its correct perspective. The observation of the High Court that prior approval of the competent authority was not mandatory, is manifestly wrong. The appointment of respondent was not in conformity with the governing Rules and executive instructions in that regard. The High Court also could not have interfered with the subject office order solely on the ground that it was issued without affording an opportunity to the respondent. The office order records just and tangible reason as to why the appointment of the respondent is illegal. Unless the core reason mentioned in the subject office order was found to be untenable, the High Court could not have concluded that the subject office order was vitiated merely because it was issued without notice or lack of opportunity to the respondent. Similarly, the fact that the Tribunal has taken note of other grounds urged by the parties (other than the reason noted in the subject office order), per se, cannot be the basis to invalidate the subject office order which is otherwise just and proper. The High Court could have ignored those other reasons/grounds taken into account by the Tribunal. [Paras 22-23] [1030B-F] Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Suppl.
4 SCC 100 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 526; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Das & Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 503 : [2002] 3 SCR 609; State of Manipur and Ors. v. Y. Token Singh and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 65 : [2007] 2 SCR 965; M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 237 : [1999] 3 SCR 1173; Dhirender Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 712 : [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 693 – relied on.
D.K. Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC
259 : [1993] 3 SCR 930; The Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. The Workmen (1968) 1 SCR 164; Karnal
Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Parkash Wanti (Smt.) (Dead) and Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 159 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 136; Montreal Street Railway Company v.
Normandin AIR (1917) Privy Council 142 –
distinguished.
State of U.P. & Ors. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 204 : [1994] 1 SCR 348; Bhopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1988) 2 RLW 428 – 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.