AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhawani Singh, ACJ.
By Order of 29.6.993 notice was issued to respondents. Till date no reply/Objections have been filed. By Order of 14.9.1994 it was directed
that in case objections were not filed, right to do so would stand closed. Even by this time no objections are filed. Looking to the nature of the
case, it is disposed of finally.
Government Order No. 462GR of 1990 dated 16.4.1990 prescribes mode for selection to category ClassIV posts outside the purview of State
Subordinate Service Recruitment Board. Consequently, the post of Library Bearer was to be filled up in Government College Bhadarwah. For an
appointment to a Public Office, applications were to be invited from general public. However, instead of following this course respondent3 has
been appointed on the recommendation of Deputy Secretary to State Government as mentioned in communication dated 25.5.1993.
Petitioner submits that this mode of appointment is illegal. It is against the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For filling
of the vacancy, authorities should have advertised the post enabling and eligible persons to apply for the same and compete with each other.
Above submissions have great force. The mode adopted for appointing respondent3 is absolutely illegal and unconstitutional. It has violated not
only Government Order No. 462GR of 1990 dated 16.4.1990 but also provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
Principle of ACTLIS LEGITIMT NON RECIPLIM MODLIM means when doing of any thing in a particular manner is sanctioned, then the
thing cannot be done in a different way. This principle has been followed in Taylor v. Taylor, 1876(1) CHD 426, State of UP v. Singhera Singh,
AIR 1964 SC 358, Trans America Morgaga Advisors v. Harry Lewis, 1 NC (Jume) 444 US 11, 62 Law Ed 2nd 146, 100 SC 242, Hukum
Chand Sham Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 789, Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 : 1991(1)
S.C.T. 675, Noor Hussain v. Financial Commissioner and three others, AIR 1995 J&K 102 and Nathu v. Amar Nath Aggarwal, AIR 1995
Allahabad 420.
Consequently, order of appointment of respondent3 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to fill up the post afresh according to
Law.