Holding

Appointment orders issued by a terminated officer are void, rendering any subsequent termination orders of the appointees valid and precluding the application of natural‑justice principles.

Summary

The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan advertised for twelve Lower Division Clerk posts and the Assistant Commissioner, Dr. K.C. Rakesh, issued appointment orders on 13-15 December 1997 even though his services had been terminated on 11 December 1997, albeit he was temporarily allowed to continue under an interim High Court order. An inquiry later uncovered irregularities in the recruitment process, and the appointing authority terminated the services of the appointees on 19 February 1998. The respondents challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the termination on the ground that the respondents were not parties to the writ proceedings and that natural justice had not been observed. The Supreme Court held that any appointment made by an officer whose authority had ceased is a nullity, and therefore the question of observing natural‑justice principles does not arise. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal, allowed the appeals of the appellants, and dismissed the respondents' applications.

Issues considered

Whether appointment orders issued by an officer whose services have been terminated are valid.
Whether principles of natural justice apply when the appointment orders are a nullity.
Whether the appointees need to be parties to the writ proceedings to claim natural justice.
Validity of termination orders of the appointees issued on the basis of void appointment orders.

Subjects

service lawappointment validitytermination of servicenatural justiceadministrative lawrecruitment irregularitiesnullity of ordersCentral Administrative TribunalHigh Court

Judgment

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS.
v.
AJAY KUMAR DAS AND ORS.

APRIL 29, 2002

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Appointment-Lower Division Clerks-Appointment orders issued by an
officer whose services had been terminated, but was continuing in service on c
the basis of an interim order of High Court-Inquiry Report brought out
irregularities in the recruitment-Vacation of interim order-Termination of
services of the appointees by the authorities-Validity of-Held, such order
not valid-Such orders being a nullity, observance of principles of natural
justice would not arise-Principles of natural justice-Administrative Law. D

Appellants issued advertisement for the posts of LDCs. Assistant
... Commissioner, whose services had been terminated a couple of days before,
issued appointment orders since he was continuing in service on the basis
of the interim order of the High Court. Assistant Commissioner then
challenged the order of his termination. High Court dismissed the petition E
and also held that the appointment order issued by him were null and void.
Inquiry Report regarding recruitment made by the Assistant Commissioner
also indicated several irregularities. Thereafter, on the basis of vacation
of the interim order, the appointing authority passed an order terminating
the services of the respondents. Respondents challenged the or_der and the
tribunal set aside the order on the ground that the respondents were not F
parties to the writ proceedings and identical order had been issued in the
case of persons who had been selected, without observing the principles of
natural justice. Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition which was dismissed
by the High Court. Hence the present appeals.
G
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: Respondents were appointed by the Assistant Commissioner
when his services had been terminated and his continuation in service itself
was under a cloud and in an inquiry serious lapses had been noticed in the
H
609
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A matter of recruitment. It is clear that if after the termination of services ;,--
of the officer concerned the orders of appointment are issued, such orders
are not valid. If such appointment orders are a nullity, the question of
observance of principles of natural justice would not arise. Even though
the respondents may not have been a party to the proceedings before the
B High Court, it is clear that if the appointing authority itself did not have
power to make appointment by reason of termination of his services, it is
futile to contend that the respondents should have been served with notices
in that regard. On the pretext that the order of termination of the services
of the Assistant Commissioner had not been served upon him, it cannot be
contended that the appointments in question would be valid.
... C 1611-F-H; 612-A, BJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3 I50 of
2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.6.2000 of the Gauhati High
D Court in W.P. (C) No. 2443 of 2000.
WITH

C.A. Nos. 3I5I-3I52, 3153, 3I54, 3155, 3I56, 3I57 of2002.
.
S. Rajappa for the Appellants.
E
A.R. Barthakur, Suresh C. Gupta, A. Gunesh:war Sharma, Sanjay Pal,
Kamal Mohan Gupta, Vipul Gupta, Ms. Lalita Kaushik, S.K. Nandy, S.M.
Sarkar, B.B. Sinha, R.C. Verma, S.C. Patel, Rakesh K. Khanna, Brahm Out,
and Reetesh Singh and Surya Kant for the Respondents.

F Ashim Paul-in-person for the Respondent in C.A. No. 3153/2002.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. : Leave granted in all the SLPs.

G The services of one Dr. K.C. Rakesh, Assistant Commissioner of the
appellants' Regional Office in Guwahati stood terminated by an order made
on December I I, I997.

An advertisement had been issued on 26. I 0.1996 for filling up I2 posts
of LDCs. Certain tests were held on different dates and letters of appointment
H were issued on 13/15 December, 1997 by the said Dr. K.C.Rakesh to the
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN r. AJAY KUMAR DAS [RAJENDRA BABU,J.} 611

respondents and they were duly appointed. On the order terminating the A
services of the said Dr. K.C. Rakesh, a writ petition was filed before the High
Court of Delhi which came to be ultimately olismissed. An interim order had
been made in the said writ petition and the same was vacated by the Delhi
High Court by an order made on 4.2.1998. The relevant portion of the said
order reads as follows:
B
" ....... taking advantage of the interim order passed by this Court, the
petitioner has issued various orders. Whatever orders passed by the.
petitioner after the termination order issued by the respondents will
be treated as null and void and they will have absolutely no legal
effect. The respondent will act as if there are not such orders passed C
by the petitioner after the termination order was passed."

In addition to that, an enquiry was conducted into certain allegations of
irregularities regarding recruitment to teaching and non-teaching posts made
by the said Dr. K.C.Rakesh. The Enquiry Report clearly indicated that there
~ere several irregularities in the matter of recruitment. Bearing these aspects D
in mind and considering the fact that the appointment orders have been
issued by the said Dr. K.C.Rakesh, when he had been dismissed, the authorities
put an end to the services of the respondents by an order made on 19.2.1998
by adverting to the vacation of the interim order to which we have already
referred to. This order was challenged by the respondents before the Central E
Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench [hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal']. The Tribunal set aside the order dated 19.2.1998 on the ground
that the respondents were not parties to the writ proceedings and identical
orders had been issued in the case of persons who had been selected without
observing the principles of natural justice. When the matter was carried by
way of writ petition to the High Court, the same having been dismissed, the F
appellants have approached this Court in these appeals by special leave.

The narration of the facts 1nade above, make it clear that the respondents
were appointed by the said Dr. K.C. Rakesh, Assistant Commissioner,
Guwahati when his services had been terminated and his continuation in
service itself was under a cloud and in an inquiry serious lapses had been
G
noticed in the matter of recruitment. It is clear that if after the termination of
services of the said Dr. K.C.Rakesh, the orders of appointment are issued,
such orders are not valid. If such appointtnent orders are a nullity, the question
of observance of principles of natural justice would not arise. Even though,
the respondents may not have been a party to the proceedings before the H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A High Court, it is clear that if the appointing authority itself did not have
power to make appointment by reason of termination of his services, it is
futile to contend that the respondents should have been served with notices
in that regard. Dr. K.C.Rakesh issued appointment orders on his services
having been put an end to on December 11, 1997 by issuance of orders of
B appointment dated December 13/15, 1997. On the pretext that the order of
termination of his services had not been served upon him it cannot be
contended that the appointments of the respondents would be valid.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that neither the High Court nor
the Tribunal examined the matter in the right perspective. We, therefore, set
C aside the orders made by the High Court and the Tribunal and dismiss the
original applications filed by the respondents before the Tribunal. These
appeals will stand allowed accordingly; No costs.

N.J. Appeals allowed.