Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ravindra Achyutrao Ghule, was appointed as a pharmacist at the Rural Hospital, Kaij, on 01/10/2008. His services were terminated on 01/12/2008 without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. On the same day, respondent No.5, Sanjivani Chate, was appointed as a pharmacist. The petitioner challenged his termination and the appointment of respondent No.5. The court found that the termination was in violation of principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was given. Additionally, respondent No.5 did not possess the requisite qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy at the time of her appointment, though she acquired it later. The court allowed the petition, set aside the termination order and the appointment of respondent No.5, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Natural Justice - Termination of a pharmacist without prior notice or opportunity of hearing is violative of principles of natural justice - The petitioner was appointed as a pharmacist on 01/10/2008 and his services were terminated on 01/12/2008 without any show cause notice or opportunity - Held that the termination order is illegal and set aside (Paras 4-6).
B) Service Law - Appointment - Qualification - Appointment of a candidate who does not possess the prescribed qualification at the time of appointment is illegal - Respondent No.5 was appointed as pharmacist on 01/12/2008 but she did not possess Diploma in Pharmacy at that time, though she subsequently acquired it - Held that the appointment of respondent No.5 is illegal and set aside (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services as a pharmacist without giving him an opportunity of hearing is violative of principles of natural justice and whether the appointment of respondent No.5 as pharmacist was illegal as she did not possess the requisite qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy at the time of appointment.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the termination order dated 01/12/2008 and the appointment of respondent No.5, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits within four weeks.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Audi alteram partem
- Termination without notice
- Standing Orders
- Qualification requirement for appointment
- Diploma in Pharmacy
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (04) 19
Writ Petition No.11079 of 2010
P.B. Majmudar, S.S. Shinde
Mr. Balbhim R. Kedar for petitioner, Mr. S.K. Kadam (A.G.P.) for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr. S.S. Jadhavar for respondent No.4, Respondent No.5 served
Ravindra s/o Achyutrao Ghule
State of Maharashtra, Civil Surgeon, Medical Superintendent & President, Rugna Kalyan Samiti, Dr. Dattatray s/o Sudamrao Chate, Sanjivani d/o Sudamrao Chate
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging termination of services and appointment of another candidate.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of termination order dated 01/12/2008 and appointment of respondent No.5, and reinstatement with continuity of service.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's services were terminated without notice or opportunity of hearing, and respondent No.5 was appointed despite lacking requisite qualification.
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services without giving him an opportunity of hearing is violative of principles of natural justice?
Whether the appointment of respondent No.5 as pharmacist is illegal as she did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of appointment?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his termination was illegal as no show cause notice or opportunity was given, and that respondent No.5 did not possess Diploma in Pharmacy at the time of appointment.
Respondents argued that the petitioner was a temporary employee and his services were terminated as per standing orders, and that respondent No.5 subsequently acquired the qualification.
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of an employee without giving an opportunity of hearing is violative of principles of natural justice. Appointment of a candidate who does not possess the prescribed qualification at the time of appointment is illegal, even if the qualification is acquired later.
Judgment Excerpts
It is not in dispute that before terminating the services of the petitioner, no show cause notice was given to him and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him.
It is an admitted position that respondent No.5 did not possess the qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy at the time of her appointment on 01/12/2008.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11079 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. On 08/12/2010, the court issued notice. The petition was heard and disposed of on 26/04/2011.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
