Raj Kumar Mehra vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—The petitioner feeling aggrieved by order dated 15.04.2009 preferred this writ petition. By the said order, the petitioner''s appointment is cancelled by giving him one month''s notice. This is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner submitted his candidature for the post which was reserved for Ex-Army Man. Petitioner, admittedly, himself is not a Ex-Army Man indeed, he is the son of Ex-Army Man. Petitioner''s application/candidature itself shows that the petitioner is not an Ex-Army Man. The respondents have filed said application, wherein petitioner himself has mentioned that he is the son of Ex-Army Man. Shri Raghuvanshi submits that as per Rules Janpad Panchayat is appointing authority of the petitioner and therefore only Janpad Panchayat can terminate his services. In addition, it is submitted that allegations mentioned in Annexure P/1 amounts to misconduct for which the disciplinary action can be taken by the disciplinary authority alone. By placing reliance on MP Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, it is contended that termination is bad in law.

Prayer is opposed by learned Dy. Government Advocate. In view of the admitted facts, it is contended that petitioner was ineligible to submit his candidature against the post reserved for Ex-Army Man. Grant of any opportunity would be an empty formality.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This is admitted position between the parties that petitioner submitted his candidature for the post which was reserved and earmarked for Ex-Army Man. Petitioner himself is not an Ex-Army Man. Thus admittedly, petitioner was not eligible for submitting his candidature. The respondents along with return have filed the proforma of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the employer. It contains condition No. 5 which shows that services of an employee can be terminated by giving one month notice.

This is settled in law that there is a exception to the principle of natural justice, which is popularly known as "Doctrine of useless formality". When the facts are not in dispute, and admi0ttedly the petitioner was not eligible to occupy the post reserved for Ex-Army Man, principle of natural justice has no role to play. In the facts and circumstances of the case, doctrine of useless formalities would be applicable. The Apex court in State of M.P. and Others Vs. Shyama Pardhi etc. etc., opined about the said doctrine as under:--

It is now an admitted fact across the Bar that the respondents had not possessed the pre-requisite qualification, namely, 10 + 2 with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as subject. The Rules specifically provided that qualification as a condition for appointment to the post of ANM. Since prescribed qualification had not been satisfied, the initial selection to undergo training is per se illegal. Later appointments thereof are in violation of the statutory rules. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right in directing the reinstatement of respondents. The question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise. The ratio of Shrawan Kumar Jha and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, , strongly relied on, has no application to the facts of this case. That was a case where appellants possessed initial qualifications but they did not undergo the training. Since the appointment was set aside on the ground of want of training, this Court interfered with; directed the Government to reinstate them into service and further directed them to send the appellants therein for training.

The respondents have given one month''s notice of termination to the petitioner which is in consonance with the terms and conditions of the appointment/contract. MP Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1999 are also codification of principle of natural justice. Once factum of petitioner''s ineligibility is not in dispute to occupy the post earmarked and reserved for Ex-Army Man, no ceremony is required to be done. This is settled in law that fraud vitiates everything. The appointment of the petitioner was impermissible against the post reserved for Ex-Army Man. No fault can be found in the action of the respondents, more so when the impugned order is passed by the same authority who issued the appointment order. Petition is dismissed. No Costs.