Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a special recruitment campaign conducted by Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for disabled candidates, leading to employment of a 100% hearing-impaired individual as Labour and his subsequent termination. The petitioner was appointed on 29 September 2017 and joined on 9 October 2017. He had passed SSC in March 2015 with 81.20% marks but did not have Marathi as a subject of 100 marks in SSC. In February 2017 he passed HSC with Marathi as a subject for 100 marks, obtaining 43 out of 100. In the application form for the post, the column for Marathi marks in SSC was left blank; the respondents later alleged misrepresentation. The advertisement required minimum 40% marks in Marathi in 10th standard or equivalent. The petitioner contended that HSC is an equivalent or higher qualification and that his disability may exempt him. The termination order dated 18 March 2021 was passed by Assistant Commissioner (Market Department) without show cause notice. The petitioner's representation was rejected on 7 May 2021, and he filed the writ petition on 12 June 2021. The court framed two issues: whether termination violates natural justice and whether petitioner was ineligible. On natural justice, it was admitted that no notice or hearing was given. The court observed that MCGM is a statutory authority under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and must act justly, fairly, reasonably. It referred to Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (AIR 2003 SC 2041) for proposition that notice is first limb of audi alteram partem. The excerpt ends before final order. The counsel for petitioner relied on Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana, Rakesh Bakshi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, S.K. Kushwaha v. D.K. Joshi, Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekar on eligibility timing. Respondent relied on District Collector case and Preetesh Raman Singh v. Delhi High Court, and advertisement clauses 5 and 15 to justify summary termination. The court's reasoning suggests violation of natural justice, but final decision not in excerpt.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petition filed under Article 226 challenging termination order dated 18 March 2021 of Assistant Commissioner (Market Department), MCGM and communication of same date; court framed issues on natural justice and eligibility and proceeded to examine legality of summary termination (Paras 2, 9). B) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Constitution of India, Article 226 and Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Admitted position that impugned termination order was passed without show cause notice or hearing; MCGM being a statutory authority is obliged to act justly, fairly and reasonably; court observed that notice is the first limb of audi alteram partem and that the second rule of natural justice was violated; relied on Canara Bank v. Shri Debasis Das, AIR 2003 SC 2041 (Paras 10-13). C) Service Law - Recruitment Eligibility - Advertisement Conditions and Disabled Candidates - Special Recruitment Campaign for disabled candidates (advertisement dated 17 October 2016) - Condition required minimum 40% marks in Marathi in 10th standard or equivalent; petitioner was 100% deaf and hard of hearing and had passed SSC without Marathi as 100-mark subject but later passed HSC with Marathi; court framed issue whether petitioner was ineligible and whether post-advertisement acquisition of eligibility can save appointment; no final determination in extracted portion (Paras 3-5, 6, 9(ii)).
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether the impugned order violates the principles of natural justice? (ii) Whether Petitioner is not eligible as per the terms and conditions of the said advertisement?
Final Decision
Not mentioned (the provided judgment excerpt ends before the final order).
Law Points
- State authorities must act justly
- fairly and reasonably
- audi alteram partem
- no decision shall be given against a party without affording reasonable hearing
- notice is the first limb of the principles of audi alteram partem
- nemo debet esse judex propria causa
- eligibility criteria to be fulfilled as per advertisement terms
- statutory authorities cannot terminate employee without show cause notice
