Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the State of Jharkhand against a decision of the Jharkhand High Court regarding the appointment of Class III and Class IV employees by Miss Suraj Mani Khalko shortly before her retirement. The respondent, Manshu Kumbhkar, claimed to have been appointed following an advertisement and interview process, but the State contended that these documents were fabricated and that the appointments were made without following the required procedures outlined in administrative instructions. The High Court initially dismissed the respondent's writ petition but later allowed it based on the argument that other similar appointments had been regularized. The State argued that the appointments were illegal and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, asserting that the learned Single Judge's order for regularization was erroneous. The court analyzed the legality of the appointments, referencing previous judgments that established that illegal appointments could not be regularized. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, stating that the initial appointments were void and could not be sustained, thereby reinforcing the need for adherence to proper recruitment procedures. The court emphasized that the purported regularizations were ineffective and that the illegal appointments should not be perpetuated. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Violation of Articles 14 and 16 - Illegality of Appointments - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 16 - Appointments made without following prescribed procedure were declared illegal, and the court emphasized that such illegal appointments cannot be regularized. The court held that the initial entry of the respondent was tainted and no question of regularization could arise (Paras 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointments made by Miss Suraj Mani Khalko were valid and whether the respondent was entitled to regularization.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating that the appointments were illegal and could not be regularized, emphasizing the necessity of following proper recruitment procedures.
Law Points
- Illegal appointments
- Articles 14 and 16
- regularization
- administrative instructions
- recruitment procedure
