Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the Union of India against a judgment of the High Court of Orissa concerning the cancellation of the appointment of Bikash Kuanar as an Extra Development Delivery Agent (EDDA). The respondent's father had previously held the position, and upon his superannuation, a vacancy arose for which the respondent applied and was appointed on 2.7.1998. However, on 2.1.1999, the appointment was cancelled by the authorities citing irregularities in the selection process. The respondent challenged this cancellation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application. Subsequently, the High Court ruled that the cancellation was unlawful, as the appointment had already conferred civil rights upon the respondent after he served for one and a half years. The appellants contended that the higher authorities had the power to rectify irregular appointments, supported by departmental instructions. However, the court found that the selection process was not vitiated and that the respondent had fulfilled all necessary criteria for the appointment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the appointment could not be cancelled without due process and that the respondent's qualifications and experience warranted his selection. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Appointment Cancellation - Authority to Cancel Appointment - Not governed by statute but by departmental instructions - The High Court held that the appointment of the respondent could not be cancelled by higher authorities without statutory backing, as civil rights had accrued to the respondent after one and a half years of service. The court emphasized that administrative instructions lack statutory force and cannot be enforced to cancel appointments legally (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the respondent could be cancelled by the higher authorities after it had been made.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that the cancellation of the respondent's appointment was unlawful and that he had accrued civil rights through his service. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Administrative law
- appointment cancellation
- principles of natural justice
- departmental instructions
- rectification of mistakes
