Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Jyoti Ashokrao Dhabadge and Jaishree Harihar Raut, applied for and were selected for posts pursuant to an advertisement issued by the District Superintendent of Agriculture, Buldana. After written examination and interview, the Selection Committee selected them, and they joined service. Subsequently, by an order dated 4.9.2012, the respondents cancelled their appointments based on a judgment passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) on 19.7.2012 in Original Application No. 90 of 2012 and MCA No. 42/12 (Review application) moved by original respondents 4 and 5. The petitioners were not parties to those proceedings. The petitioners challenged the cancellation order on the ground that they were not heard before the order was passed. The court considered whether the cancellation of appointments without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners was valid. The court noted that the petitioners were not parties to the MAT proceedings and that the impugned order was passed without giving them any hearing. The court held that the cancellation order was in violation of principles of natural justice and could not be sustained. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and consequential benefits, but without back wages. The court also clarified that the respondents were at liberty to proceed in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Natural Justice - Cancellation of Appointment - Petitioners were selected and appointed pursuant to an advertisement. Their appointments were cancelled based on an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No. 90 of 2012, to which they were not parties. The Court held that the impugned order cancelling appointments without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners is in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Binding Effect of Tribunal Order - The order of the MAT was passed in a proceeding where the petitioners were not parties. The respondents could not rely on such order to cancel the petitioners' appointments without hearing them. The Court set aside the cancellation order and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits, but without back wages. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of appointments of the petitioners, who were not parties to the proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, based on the Tribunal's order, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order dated 4.9.2012, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and consequential benefits, but without back wages. The respondents were at liberty to proceed in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Audi alteram partem
- Cancellation of appointment without hearing
- Binding effect of tribunal order on non-parties
