AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner was appointed as Nursing Orderly in the pay scale of Rs. 7451025 by order No. 84 of 1990 dated: 21.1.1990. He claims to have
joined pursuant thereto and while he was in service he received order dated 9.8.1990 which made reference to the order passed by respondent
No. 2 dated 8.8.1990 cancelling his appointment. The petitioner's short case is that once he was appointed to the post of Nursing Orderly and
was found fit to hold such post and was working against the post for about eight months, his appointment could not be cancelled at his back and
without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the objections filed by the respondents it is admitted that petitioner was appointed on 29.1.1990 by respondent No.2. He was to remain on
probation for three years and was attached to Police Medical Officer, JKAP 8th BN. Later it was pointed out that by Police Headquarters that ho
such post of Nursing Orderly was sanctioned in the 8th Bn: and his appointment was wrongly made. The Director General of police accordingly
ordered cancellation of his appointment alongwith one Angraz singh. It is submitted that petitioners appointment was made as a result of mistake as
no post of Nursing Orderly was sanctioned for 8th Bn: for which two posts of male Nurses were available which were required to be filled up by
trained candidates for which Health Department was approached for posting trained and suitable nurses.
All that remains to be seen is whether petitioners appointment could be cancelled at his back and without notice to him.
It is not disputed that petitioner was selected and found fit for the post of Nursing Orderly as can be gathered from his appointment order dated:
29.1.1990. It is also admitted that he was working for the post for as good as eight months. In the circumstances he had acquired a right to the
post against which he was working and drawing his salary etc., He could be divested of this right only in accordance with the procedure
established by law and not arbitrarily. If it is to be believed that there was no post of Nursing Orderly available in 8th Bn:, it is not understandable
how he was allowed to work for as good as eight months for which period he had admittedly drawned salary and obtained benefits. Assuming that
no such post was available and proceeding further on the premise that petitioners appointment was an out come of some mistake, still respondents
were under an obligation to cancel his appointment upon notice to him and on affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard in consonancewith
the principles of natural justice. He could not be thrown out arbitrarily without recourse to the principles of natural justice, even though he may have
been on probation. Because it was not a case of simpliciter termination of service of probation on the ground of unsuitability but a case of
nonavailability of post according to respondents. Therefore if respondents had wrongly selected the petitioner and afforded him an appointment,
they were bound to stand by their commitment or else to remove the petitioner from service in accordance with the procedure established by law.
They could not take shelter under a mistake and do away with his services, because, by that logic, any appointment was liable to be cancelled and
the appointee thrown on the road on the alibi of mistake.
For the reasons given, this petition succeeds and order impugned dated: 9.1.1990 read with order passed by respondent No.2 dated: 8.8.1990
shall stand quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and take requisite administrative
steps in this regard which may even involve petitioners adjustment elsewhere.