PRAMOD LAHUDAS MESHRAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                    PRAMOD LAHUDAS MESHRAM                                      A
                                v.
                  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.



-
<
                             SEPTEMBER 11, 1996

     [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                       B

         Service Law :

           Selection-Post of Oversear/Junior Engineer (Civil Enginee1ing)-Ad-
    ve1tisement-On the basis of recommendation letter from Member-Secret01y C
    3 candidates appointed on probation for one yea~Services of the said
    candidates tenninated on the basis that the earlier letters canied unauthorised
    reconunendatiims-W!it Petition filed in High Cowt challenging the tennina-
    tion orders dismissed-On appeal held the letter$ of recommendation were
    not auth01ised and according to mies-Therefore the cancellation of the said
    appointments could not be found fault with-State Govemment directed to D
    refer the matter to appropriate State CID enquiry to make an independent
    investigation into the matter and to find out as to who were responsible for
    such malpractice and to launch approp1iate C1iminal prosecution against the
    culprits.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
                                                                                 E
    No. 19775 of 1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.96 of the Bombay High
    Court in W.P. No. 885 of 1993.
                                                                                 F·
          AK. Sanghi and S.V. Deshpande for the appearing parties.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Delay condoned.

         The petitioner complains that he being a qualified candidate with      G
    Diploma in Engineering and Secondary Education had applied for the post
    of Oversear/Junior Engineer (Civil Engineering) as per the advertisement
    dated April 30, 1991 published in daily 'Tarun Bharat' on May 2, 1991.
    The advertisement indicated that of the 3 posts, two were reserved for
    backward classes and one was for general candidates. Petitioner being a     H
                                       117
    118                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A reserved class, hailing from che Scheduled Caste, received letter of appoint-
    ments from the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli; in
    letter No. PWB/Estt-1/1108/1/93 dated March 31, 1993 it was stated that a
    recommendation had been made by Member Secretary, Regional Subor-
    dinate Service Seleccion Board, Nagpur in their letter No.
    RSB,:Nag/1210/M-792/PS-l/92 dated June 15, 1992 that 3 candidates were
B
    selected. The names had been repeated and as regards the petitioner, his
    recommendation letter No. RSB/N~g/1160/M-792/1992/PS-I dated July 31,
    1992/7.8.92 was said to be issued by the Member Secretary selecting the
    petitioner as Junior Engineer (Civil). Pursuant thereto, he came to be
    appointed as a Junior Engineer with probation for one year. After comple-
c   tion of nine months service, he received the letter dated November 16, 1992
    stating therein that the above letters carried unauthorised recommenda-
    tions; therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The order
    of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli was impugned
    by the petitioner and others in the W.P. No. 885/93 in the High Court of
    Bombay, Nagpur Bench claiming that they had been regularly appointed
D
    to the posts which were advertised; therefore, their services could not be
    terminated during t~e probation period without affording opportunity of
    hearing in the enquiry. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition.
    Thus, this special leave petition.

E          Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended
    that when the posts were advertised and the candidates were found eligible,
    it does not mandate that there should be an interview and selection.
    Obviously, the Service Selection Board having found the petitioner to be
    eligible and qualified, recommended him and was accordingly appointed
p   as Junior Engineer, when it was sought to be cancelled on a letter written
    by Member Secretary of the Service Selection Board, they are entitled to
    be heard. No such opportunity has ever been given before cancellation of
    their appointments. It was, therefore, violative of principles of natural
    justice. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that on their own
    admission they have merely applied for the post pursuant to an advertise-
G   ment made for the selection. It is the case of the Selection Board that a
    regular selection has to be made and selecting the eligible candidates,
    recommendation for appointment would be made. Therefore, the letter can
    be said to have conveyed that the recommendations were not authorised
    and according to the rules; such being the admitted position, we do not
H   find any fault to cat).cel the appointments. Under those circumstances, we
                        P.LMESHRAM v.STATE                              119

do not find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents. However,
such things will not be permitted to be kept under the carpet. The State
Government is directed to refer the matter to the appropriate State CBI
enquiry and the concerned Inspector would make an independent inves-
tigation into the matter to find out as to who were responsible for such
mal- practice committed and it will be open to take appropriate criminal
prosecution launched against the culprits.

       The SLP is dismissed. This order to be communicated to the D.G.P.,
Maharasht~a.

G.N.                                                    Petition dismissed .




                                                          •