Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of a Junior Engineer appointed in the Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra. The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate holding a Diploma in Engineering and Secondary Education, had applied for the post of Overseer/Junior Engineer (Civil Engineering) in response to an advertisement dated April 30, 1991, published in the daily Tarun Bharat on May 2, 1991. The advertisement indicated that out of three posts, two were reserved for backward classes and one for general candidates. The petitioner was selected through recommendation letters issued by the Member Secretary, Regional Subordinate Service Selection Board, Nagpur, and was appointed as Junior Engineer on probation for one year. After completing about nine months of service, he received a communication dated November 15, 1992, stating that the earlier recommendation letters were unauthorised, and his services were terminated. The petitioner, along with others, challenged the termination order before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Writ Petition No. 885 of 1993. They contended that they had been regularly appointed to advertised posts and therefore their services could not be terminated during probation without affording an opportunity of hearing. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading to the special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the termination of a probationer on the ground that the recommendation letters were unauthorised, without a hearing, violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's counsel argued that when posts were advertised and candidates were found eligible, there was no mandatory requirement of interview and selection; hence cancellation of appointment without hearing was arbitrary. The Selection Board maintained that a regular selection process had to be followed, and the letters conveying recommendations were not correct under the rules. The Supreme Court found no force in the petitioner's contention. It noted the petitioner's own admission that he had merely applied pursuant to the advertisement. The Court accepted that the selection was irregular because the recommendation letters were unauthorised, and therefore the foundation of the appointment was invalid. It held that no illegality was committed by the respondents in cancelling the appointments. However, expressing concern that such malpractices should not be concealed, the Court directed the State Government to refer the matter to the appropriate State CBI enquiry. The concerned Inspector was to conduct an independent investigation to identify those responsible for the malpractice, and criminal prosecution could be launched against the culprits. The order was directed to be communicated to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra. The special leave petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Probationer - Unauthorised Selection Recommendations - No specific Act cited - The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on probation based on recommendation letters; after nine months his services were terminated on the ground that the letters were unauthorised. The Supreme Court held that since the appointment itself was based on unauthorised recommendations and the selection was not regular, the termination did not violate principles of natural justice. Held that no illegality was committed in cancelling the appointments and the SLP was dismissed (Judgment, Pages 1-2). B) Criminal Law - Malpractice in Recruitment - State Investigation Direction - No specific Act cited - The Court observed that such malpractices should not be suppressed and directed the State Government to refer the matter to the appropriate State CBI enquiry for independent investigation to identify persons responsible and to take criminal prosecution. Held that order to be communicated to Director General of Police, Maharashtra (Judgment, Pages 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of a Junior Engineer appointed on probation on the ground that the recommendation letters were unauthorised, without affording an opportunity of hearing, violated principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
Special Leave Petition dismissed. The Court upheld the termination, finding no illegality. It directed the State Government to refer the matter to the appropriate State CBI enquiry for an independent investigation to identify those responsible for malpractice and permitted criminal prosecution. Order to be communicated to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra.
Law Points
- An appointment based on unauthorised recommendations or an irregular selection process confers no legal right to continue in service
- termination of such appointee during probation without hearing does not violate natural justice
- the State is duty-bound to investigate recruitment malpractices by referring the matter to CBI enquiry
