AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Deepanshu Das, holding brief of Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar, holding brief of Sri R.P. Mehrotra, for opposite parties No.1 and 2 and the learned Chief Standing counsel, for opposite party No.3.
Since common questions are involved in these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the same judgment.
The grievance of the petitioners is that without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and violating the principles of natural justice, Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli has cancelled the process of selection and the orders of appointment issued in favour of the petitioners on 18.3.1995.
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Tax Inspectors and Tax Collectors in the establishment of Zila Panchayat, Raebareli. Some persons were appointed as Clerks and Peons in their respective ministerial and lower subordinate cadre of the establishment of Zila Panchayat, Raebareli.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the State Government, vide Government Order dated 1.12.1994 sanctioned some post of Clerks and Peons in Zila Panchayat, Raebareli. The direct recruitment process was initiated, interviews and selections were held for making appointments on the posts. A Selection Committee was constituted for making appointment on the post. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Tax Inspectors, Clerks and Peons in Zila Panchayat. Formal orders were issued in their favour on 18.3.1995 by Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli. All the petitioners assumed charge and started duties functions and responsibility of the posts.
Sri Das has further submitted that the State Government had approved these ad hoc appointments by issuing a specific and express Government Order dated 26th May, 1995. It was indicated in the Government Order that these ad hoc appointments may be regularized by constituting a Regularization Committee and no more ad hoc appointments be made in Zila Panchayat, Raebareli. Thus according to the petitioners, they have acquired substantial status to continue in the services as their ad hoc appointments were subsequently approved by the State Government vide Government Order dated 26th May, 1995.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that new election took place in Zila Panchayat on 22nd May, 1995 and one Sri Sudershan Ram was elected as new Chairman. The new Chairman had passed an order for cancellation of selection process and appointments etc. including the appointments of the petitioner. The Upper Mukhaya Adhikari, of Zila Panchayat, Raebareli communicated the decision of the Chairman by issuing order of cancellation on 4.7.1995. Thus, the selection process and the resultant appointments of the petitioners have been cancelled by the Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli. No approval or permission of the State Government was sought who had recently approved the ad hoc appointments of the petitioners. This order is violative of principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing before cancellation of their appointments.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following decisions of Hon''ble the Supreme Court of India and this Court in support of his submission:
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531.
Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others, AIR 1990 SC 307.
Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 330.
Viswamitra Yadav v. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others, 1998 UPLBEC 23.
On the basis of ratio as laid down in these judgments, Sri Deepanshu Das has strenuously argued that the petitioner had acquired substantial legal right to hold the post after issuance of appointments orders and assuming charges of the post. They became employees of Zila Panchayat, Raebareli. In fact, the selection process had exhausted by issuance of order of appointments. In the present case, an advertisement was inserted in the newspapers. The candidatures of a large numbers of eligible candidates were considered by the Selection Committee duly constituted by the then Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli. The outcome of the selection process was transformed into issuance of formal order of appointments on 18.3.1995. The State Government had approved these ad hoc appointments and in view of these facts, the appointments ought not to have been cancelled by the subsequently elected Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli.
Sri Hemant Kumar, holding brief of Sri R.P. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioners'' appointments were per se illegal and irregular. The Adhyakshya, Zila Panchayat and the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Raebareli just before election had initiated the process of Selection and issued order of appointment under his signature as per Rules 75 of the U.P. Zila Parishads Services Rules, 1970. Such orders like administrative orders, appointments orders etc. issued under the Signature of Upper Mukhya Adhikari and the Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat was not justified in making the ad hoc appointments as no approval of State Government was sought. The Committee was not properly constituted. It has been further submitted that as per interim order passed by this Court on 8.3.1995 in Writ Petition No.763 of 1995 (S/S), Vijay Prakash v. State of U.P., no appointments could have been made. There was no provison in the scheme of Rules of 1997 to make ad hoc appointments. This power vests with the State Government only. Learned counsel for the opposite parties had led the Court to the detailed submission made in the counter affidvit in support of his submission. According to him, the whole process of selection and appointments is irregular, rather illegal, and as such, the process was cancelled by the Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat and there is no illegality in the impugned order. Since the selection and appointments were illegal and irregular, no opportunity of hearing could have been afforded to the petitioners before issuing the order of cancellation on 4th July, 1995.
11.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is the admitted case between the parties that the State Government vide Government Order dated 26th May, 1995 had approved the ad hoc appointments made by Adhyakshya, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli on 18.3.1995 no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before issuing the impugned order of cancellation of appointments. An advertisement was issued, the Selection Committee was constituted and prima facie it appears that the process of direct recruitment as indicated in U.P. Zila Parishads Services Rules, 1970 was followed, preceding the issuance of order of appointments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the writ petition No.763 of 1995 was withdrawn by him and the interim order granted earlier was of no consequence as it had merged in the final order of dismissal.
It is evident from the record that the cancellation of appointments and selection process has been done without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. After assuming the charges of the posts the petitioners had acquired substantial right to remain in service. The appointments were duly approved by the State Government and no approval was sought from the State Government to cancel the earlier order of approval, issued on 26th May, 1995. After assuming charge of the post, all the petitioners were receiving salary and discharging their duties, functions and responsibility of the posts. This is not a case in which the appointments were obtained on fraud or by resorting to illegal method. The appointment orders were duly issued by erstwhile Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli after following due procedure as provided in the relevant Rules 1970. The State Government''s approval itself indicates that everything was done in the order. The posts were already sanctioned for Zila Panchayat, Raebareli and the exigencies of service did require continuance of these ad hoc appointments.
In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 4.7.1995 passed by Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Raebareli.
(Petition allowed)