Supreme Court Allows Appellants in Service Termination Case Due to High Court's Failure to Examine Recruitment Rule Compliance. Appointments as Registration Clerks Allegedly Made Without Newspaper Advertisement Under Rule 22 of Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985, and Matter Remanded for Merits Consideration.

In Favour of Accused
  • 8
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave against a common order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by persons employed as Registration Clerks in the office of the Sub-Registrar, District Jhansi. The appellants claimed that they were not daily-wage employees but had been regularly appointed after a selection process. They alleged that in response to a notice inviting applications, they submitted applications, appeared before a selection committee on February 24, 1991, were selected, and were appointed by the District Registrar on March 18, 1991, with the appointment approved by the Inspector General of Registration on April 15, 1991. However, by order dated May 27, 1991, the Inspector General directed the District Registrar to terminate services of Registration Clerks employed on daily-wage basis. The District Registrar terminated the appellants' services with effect from May 27, 1991, treating them as daily-wage Registration Clerks. Aggrieved, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 17785 of 1991 before the Allahabad High Court challenging the termination. The High Court heard the writ petition along with other matters concerning daily-wage Registration Clerks and dismissed it by common order dated February 8, 1995. The appellants' grievance before the Supreme Court was that their case stood on a different footing: they claimed regular appointment after selection, not daily-wage engagement, and that the factual averments in the writ petition were not disputed in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court. However, in the counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the respondents stated that the appointments had been made without complying with Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985, because applications were accepted directly without issuing an advertisement in a daily newspaper as required. The respondents submitted that the selection was defective ab initio. The Supreme Court observed that the question whether the appointments were vitiated by violation of Rule 22 had not been examined by the High Court. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition without going into that question. The Court held that this was a matter requiring consideration by the High Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and order dated February 8, 1995 insofar as it related to Writ Petition No. 17785 of 1991, and remitted the writ petition to the High Court for consideration on merits. No order as to costs was made.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Mandatory Advertisement Requirement - Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985, Rule 22 - The Supreme Court considered whether appointments as Registration Clerks made without newspaper advertisement as required by Rule 22 were defective ab initio, an issue the High Court failed to examine. Held that the question required consideration by the High Court, and the writ petition was remitted for merits consideration.

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without examining the question whether the appellants' appointments were made in violation of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985, and whether their appointments were regular rather than daily-wage.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated February 8, 1995 in so far as it relates to Writ Petition No. 17785 of 1991 is set aside. The said writ petition is remitted to the High Court for consideration on merits. No costs.

Law Points

  • High Court must consider material questions of fact and law before dismissing a writ petition
  • breach of mandatory recruitment rule requiring newspaper advertisement may render selection defective ab initio
  • distinction between daily-wage and regularly selected appointees is material
  • appellate court may remand for examination of an unconsidered issue
  • no order as to costs
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1995 LawText (SC) (09) 24

1995-09-27

S.C. Agrawal, B.P. Jeevan Reddy

JT 1995 (7) 122, 1995 SCALE (5)610

Sanjay Gupta & Ors.

State of U.P. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging termination of services of Registration Clerks appointed allegedly on regular basis after selection.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought quashing of termination order dated May 27, 1991 and restoration of their services as regularly appointed Registration Clerks.

Filing Reason

Appellants' services were terminated by District Registrar pursuant to Inspector General of Registration's direction treating them as daily-wage Registration Clerks, despite their claim of regular appointment after selection.

Previous Decisions

Allahabad High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 17785 of 1991 by common order dated February 8, 1995 along with other daily-wage Registration Clerk matters without examining whether appointment violated Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without examining the question whether the appellants' appointment was made in violation of Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985. Whether the appellants' case was distinct from daily-wage Registration Clerks because they claimed regular appointment after selection by Selection Committee and approval by Inspector General.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that their appointments were regular after due selection, not daily-wage, and that factual averments in the writ petition were not disputed in the High Court counter affidavit. Respondents argued in the Supreme Court counter affidavit that the appointment was made without complying with Rule 22 of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985 because applications were accepted directly without newspaper advertisement, making selection defective ab initio. Appellants submitted that the High Court failed to consider this distinct issue and dismissed the writ petition without examining the alleged violation.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the High Court dismisses a writ petition without examining a material question regarding violation of recruitment rules, the matter must be remanded for consideration on merits; a defect in the appointment process such as lack of mandatory newspaper advertisement under Rule 22 may render selection defective ab initio, requiring judicial scrutiny.

Judgment Excerpts

Leave granted. The said writ petition is remitted to the High Court for consideration on merits. It has been submitted that as a result of the said defect the selection was defective ab initio.

Procedural History

The appellants were employed as Registration Clerks on daily wage basis in the office of Sub-Registrar, District Jhansi during 1990 and 1991. In response to notice inviting applications, they submitted applications and appeared before Selection Committee on February 24, 1991. They were selected and appointed by District Registrar by order dated March 18, 1991; appointment was approved by Inspector General of Registration on April 15, 1991. On May 27, 1991, Inspector General directed District Registrar to terminate services of daily-wage Registration Clerks; District Registrar terminated appellants' services with effect from May 27, 1991 treating them as daily-wage. Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 17785 of 1991 before Allahabad High Court. The High Court heard it with other matters and dismissed by common order dated February 8, 1995. Appellants then filed Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court; leave granted; Supreme Court allowed appeal and remitted writ petition to High Court for consideration on merits.

Acts & Sections

  • Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (District Recruitment) Rules, 1985: Rule 22
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Hears Appeal Against Conviction for Murder Under Indian Penal Code Section 302. Dying Declaration Recorded by Police Officer Was Central to Prosecution Case After Eyewitnesses Turned Hostile.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Search and Seizure Provisions Under Income Tax Act, 1961 in Writ Petitions and Appeals. Constitutional Validity of Sections 132(1) and 132(5) Affirmed as Reasonable Restrictions on Fundamental Rights Under Article 19(1)(f) and (...