Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusRAGHUWAR PAL SINGH
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 234
- Decided
- 13 March 2018
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
An appointment made without the mandatory prior approval of the competent authority is a nullity, rendering the principles of natural justice inapplicable to its termination.
Summary
The respondent was appointed as Veterinary Compounder in the Central Cattle Breeding Farms in 1999 by the then Director In‑charge without obtaining prior written approval of the competent authority as required by the Central Cattle Breeding Farms (Class III and IV) Recruitment Rules, 1969. The Department later issued an office order cancelling the appointment on the ground that it was illegal and terminated the respondent's services. The respondent challenged the termination, arguing that natural‑justice principles required a hearing and that the lack of prior approval was only an irregularity, not a nullity. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was a nullity because the appointing officer lacked authority without the required approval, and therefore the principles of natural justice did not apply. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restored the Tribunal’s order dismissing the respondent’s application, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The appointment made without prior approval of the competent authority is a nullity or merely an irregularity.
- Whether the principles of natural justice, including a right to be heard, must be observed before terminating a service that stems from a null appointment.
- Whether the High Court erred in quashing the departmental office order on the ground of lack of notice and hearing.
Legislation cited
- CCS (CCA) Ruless. Rule‑12, s. Rule‑2(j)
- Central Cattle Breeding Farms (Class III and IV) Recruitment Rules, 1969
- Constitution of Indias. Article 311(2)
- Government of India Order No. F.7/14/61-Ests.(A) dated 24.1.63
- Industrial Disputes Acts. Section 17(1)
Subjects
Service lawAppointment without authorityNullity of appointmentPrior approval of competent authorityNatural justiceTermination of serviceAdministrative law
Judgment
1012 [2018] REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 4 S.C.R. 1012 [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
v.
RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 1636 of 2012)
B MARCH 13, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Service Law:
C Appointment – Without approval of competent authority –
Termination of service – Without affording opportunity of hearing –
Propriety of – Held: Prior approval of competent authority for
appointment was mandatory as per service rules and executive
instructions – Therefore, appointment without prior approval of
competent authority, suffers from the vice of lack of authority and
D
nullify in law – The appointment being a nullity there was no question
of observance of principles of natural justice before termination of
such appointment – Central Cattle Breeding Forum (Class III and
IV Post) Recruitment Rules, 1969- Principle of Natural Justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1. The recruitment procedure in relation to the post
of Veterinary Compounder is governed by the statutory rules
titled ‘Central Cattle Breeding Farms (Class III and Class IV
posts) Recruitment Rules, 1969, as amended from time to time
and including the executive instructions issued in that behalf.
F As per the stated dispensation for such recruitment, the
appointment letter could be issued only by an authorised officer
and after grant of approval by the competent authority. Even if it
is assumed that the then Director Incharge had the authority to
issue a letter of appointment. Nevertheless, he could do so only
G upon obtaining prior written approval of the of the competent
authority. No case has been made out in the Original Application
that due approval was granted by the competent authority before
issue of the letter of appointment to the respondent. [Paras 16-
17] [1025-G-H; 1026-C-D]
H
1012
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH 1013
2. In absence of prior approval of the competent authority, A
the Director Incharge could not have hastened issuance of the
appointment letter. The act of commission and omission of the
then Director Incharge would, therefore, suffer from the vice of
lack of authority and nullity in law. [Para 17] [1026-E]
3. The subject office order dated 29.08.2000 opens with B
the statement that the same was issued in compliance with the
Ministry’s decision vide letter No.8-6/1999-ADMN.III dt.
18.08.2000. By reference to the said communication-cum-decision
of the Ministry, it stood incorporated in the subject office order.
Besides, the subject office order explicitly states that the
appointment of the respondent was illegally made by the then C
Director Incharge. This reason of illegal appointment takes within
its fold the unilateral constitution of the Selection Board (not in
accordance with the prescribed constitution of the selection
Board) and also the Director Incharge nominating himself as the
Chairman of such Board, although disqualified to be on the Board D
because the candidate was related to him. As a result, the
Ministry took holistic decision, after reckoning all aspects of the
matter including that it was not just a solitary appointment of the
respondent, but also other appointment letters issued by him
under his signature. All such appointments made by him came
under the scanner as being fraudulent and without authority. Such E
appointments would obviously be a nullity in law. [Para 18] [1026-
F-H; 1027-A-B]
4. If the appointment letters are nullity, having been issued
by an officer who did not wield authority to do so, there was no
question of observance of principles of natural justice even though F
the affected party was not before the Court. The mere fact that
such letter of appointment had been issued in favour of the
respondent does not bestow any right in his favour much less to
insist for an opportunity of being heard. In the fact situation of
the present case, giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent G
before issuance of the subject office order was not an essential
requirement and it would be an exercise in futility. [Paras 19, 22
and 27] [1027-C-D; 1030-A; 1031-G]
5. The High Court has not analysed the efficacy of the
crucial reason recorded in the subject office order in its correct H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A perspective. The observation of the High Court that prior
approval of the competent authority was not mandatory, is
manifestly wrong. The appointment of respondent was not in
conformity with the governing Rules and executive instructions
in that regard. The High Court also could not have interfered
with the subject office order solely on the ground that it was issued
B
without affording an opportunity to the respondent. The office
order records just and tangible reason as to why the appointment
of the respondent is illegal. Unless the core reason mentioned in
the subject office order was found to be untenable, the High Court
could not have concluded that the subject office order was vitiated
C merely because it was issued without notice or lack of opportunity
to the respondent. Similarly, the fact that the Tribunal has taken
note of other grounds urged by the parties (other than the reason
noted in the subject office order), per se, cannot be the basis to
invalidate the subject office order which is otherwise just and
proper. The High Court could have ignored those other reasons/
D
grounds taken into account by the Tribunal. [Paras 22-23] [1030-
B-F]
Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Suppl.
4 SCC 100 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 526; Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Das &
E Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 503 : [2002] 3 SCR 609; State of
Manipur and Ors. v. Y. Token Singh and Ors. (2007) 5
SCC 65 : [2007] 2 SCR 965; M. C. Mehta v. Union of
India & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 237 : [1999] 3 SCR 1173;
Dhirender Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
F (1997) 2 SCC 712 : [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 693 – relied
on.
D.K. Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC
259 : [1993] 3 SCR 930; The Remington Rand of India
Ltd. v. The Workmen (1968) 1 SCR 164; Karnal
G Improvement Trust, Karnal v. Parkash Wanti (Smt.)
(Dead) and Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 159 : [1995] 1 Suppl.
SCR 136; Montreal Street Railway Company v.
Normandin AIR (1917) Privy Council 142 –
distinguished.
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH 1015
State of U.P. & Ors. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association A
& Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 204 : [1994] 1 SCR 348; Bhopal
Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1988) 2 RLW 428 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 526 relied on Para 7 B
[1994] 1 SCR 348 referred to Para 7
[2002] 3 SCR 609 relied on Para 7
[1993] 3 SCR 930 distinguished Para 9
(1988) 2 RLW 428 referred to Para 9
C
[2007] 2 SCR 965 relied on Para 11
(1968) 1 SCR 164 distinguished Para 13
[1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 136 distinguished Para 13
AIR (1917) Privy Council 142 distinguished Para 13
[1999] 3 SCR 1173 relied on Para 21 D
[1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 693 relied on Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1636
of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2010 of the High Court E
of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Civil Writ Petition No. 4235 of 2002.
A. K. Panda, Sr. Adv., Mrs. C. K. Sucharita, Shailender Saini,
Raj Bahadur, D. S. Mahra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Shailja Nanda Mishra, Satyendra Kumar,
Yuvraj Simant, Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for the Respondent. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The central questions posed in
this appeal are: (i) whether the appointment of the respondent to the
post of Veterinary Compounder, made by the Director Incharge at the
relevant point of time without approval of the Competent Authority, was G
a nullity or a mere irregularity, which could be glossed over by the
department to avert disruption of his services and; (ii) in any case, whether
his services could be disrupted without giving him an opportunity of
hearing.
H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A 2. Briefly stated, the respondent was appointed to the post of
Veterinary Compounder in the Department of Animal Husbandry and
Dairying by one H.S. Rathore, the then Agriculture Officer, Central Cattle
Breeding Farms (CCBF), Suratgarh, who was purportedly authorised
only to look after the current duties of the post of Director. The
appointment was made in November 1999 on a provisional and temporary
B
basis, pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspaper on
15.10.1999. However, by an office order dated 29th August, 2000 issued
under the signature of Dr. M.N. Haque, Director, the services of
respondent came to be terminated. The said order reads thus:
“Government of India
C Ministry of Agriculture
Department of All & Dairying
……….Cattle Breeding Farm
SURATGARH – 335 804 (Raj.)
Dated the 29thAugust, 2000.
D
OFFICE ORDER
In compliance to Ministry’s decision vide their letter No.8-6/99-
Admn.III dated 18th August, 2000, illegal appointment, of Shri
Raghuwar Pal Singh S/o Shri Himat Singh Shekhawat to the post of
Veterinary Compounder, made by the then Director Incharge Shri
E H.S. Rathore, agriculture Officer, without approval of the
Competent Authority, vide this office order No. 14-62/99-CPS/1562
dated 24/30 November, 1999, is CANCELLED with immediate effect.
Accordingly, his service stands terminated as per terms and conditions
laid down in point v) & vi) of the offer of appointment letter no.5-17/96-
F 99/CPS/1308 dated 16/22 November, 1999.
(Dr. M. N. Haque)
DIRECTOR.”
(emphasis supplied)
3. The respondent assailed the said order by filing Original
G Application No.206 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jodhpur Bench at Jodhpur, inter alia, on the ground that the appointment
was made by the Board of Officers after they had duly considered the
matter and who were competent to issue offer of appointment to the
respondent. Further, if there was any irregularity in the appointment
H process, that could have been enquired into by the department, but without
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH 1017
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
taking recourse to any inquiry, the impugned termination order had been A
issued. Such action was violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of
India. According to the respondent, his appointment was made after
following all the formalities by the department in a fair and transparent
manner. He asserted that the department was therefore, estopped from
terminating his services. Further, the impugned order is not a termination
B
simpliciter but would cause prejudice to the respondent. It is a stigmatic
order indicating that the appointment of the respondent was illegal, for
which reason also, principles of natural justice ought to have been adhered
to by the department.
3. The appellants resisted the said Original Application, by filing a
detailed affidavit. According to the appellants, the respondent had not C
approached the Court with clean hands. In that, he has mentioned the
numbers of the relevant documents, which pertain to some other case
and not his order of appointment or termination. On merits, it was asserted
by the appellants that the appointment of the respondent to the post of
Veterinary Compounder was not as per the law. It was made by the D
then Director Incharge H.S. Rathore, Agriculture Officer and without
approval of the competent authority. On the date of issuing the appointment
letter, Shri H. S. Rathore had no authority to do so. It was asserted by
the appellants that pursuant to advertisement dated 15.10.1999,
appointment could be made only in conformity with the relevant
Recruitment Rules, as amended from time to time, titled ‘Central Cattle E
Breeding Farm (Class III and IV Post) Recruitment Rules, 1969’. In
terms of the said Rules, an interview was required to be conducted by a
Board comprising of three officers viz. Director of the Farm, Senior-
most Technical Officer and one Government Officer of Central/State
Government. However, the selection process and interview in the present F
case were conducted by the Board unilaterally constituted by the said
H.S. Rathore, consisting of seven members including himself, being
Director Incharge. Further, he acted as the Chairman of the said Board.
The Board consisted of the following members:
“1) Shri H.S. Rathore, 1/C Director Chairman G
2) Shri S.C. Aggarwal, Executive Member Engineer, Central State
Farm (SFCI Ltd.) (Not a Central Govt. office)
3) Shri CS. Manohar, Asso. Professor Member Veterinary College,
Bikaner (whereas a Veterinary Officer is already there in the
office itself) H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A 4) Shri R.L. Aswal, Asstt. Stn. Engineer Member All India Radio,
Suratgarh
5) Dr. M.S. Rathore, Project Officer Member URMUL Dairy,
Chhattargarh (Which is not a Central/State office)
6) Shri Baldev Singh, Agriculture Asstt. Member CCBF, Suratgarh
B (A Group ‘C’ employee)
7) Shri A. Narsingh, Technical Asst. member CCBF (A Group ‘C’
employee)”
In other words, the said Board was not validly constituted. Furthermore,
C the respondent was the son of the younger brother-in-law of H.S. Rathore,
the Director Incharge and Chairman of the Board. The Chairman of
the Board had direct relation with and interest in the appointment of the
respondent. It is then stated that as per the prescribed procedure,
appointment is required to be made after obtaining prior approval from
the competent authority i.e. Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal
D Husbandry and Dairying, New Delhi. That procedure was, admittedly,
not adhered to before issuing the letter of appointment to the respondent.
For all these reasons, the appointment of the respondent as made by the
then Director Incharge H.S. Rathore, Agriculture Officer, was without
any authority of law. It was a fraudulent appointment. When the same
E was noticed by the department, soon thereafter, the subject office order
dated 29.08.2000 came to be issued. It was stated that the appointment
of two other candidates to the post of Junior Mechanic and Tractor
Helper made by H.S. Rathore as Director Incharge also came to be
cancelled by the department by issuing similar termination order. In
addition, a departmental action has been initiated against H.S. Rathore
F for committing serious misconduct and abusing his official position during
the relevant period. The appellants pointed out that one Dr. B.S. Singh
was posted as Director CCBF, Suratgarh on ad hoc basis and was ordered
to function as Head of Office during his tenure vide order dated
21.02.1995. No authorization was given to H.S. Rathore to issue letter
G of appointment. He was merely holding the post of Agriculture Officer.
Considering the unilateral action of H.S. Rathore, major penalty
memorandum was issued to him by the department on 22.06.2001 in
particular with reference to the appointments made by him to the post of
Veterinary Compounder, Junior Mechanic, Tractor Helper and milker
and also on ad hoc basis to the post of LDC and UDC.
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH 1019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
4. The other two affected candidates had also challenged the A
termination order passed against them by way of Original Application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The
Tribunal heard all the three O.As together as the issues raised therein
were similar.
5. The Tribunal, after analysing the relevant contentions of both B
sides, opined that there was no infirmity in the termination order passed
against the concerned applicant including the respondent herein. The
Tribunal noted thus:
“11. It is not in dispute that till his ad hoc appointment as Director,
Regional Station for Forage Production and Demonstration, C
Suratgarh, Shri HS. Rathore, was only posted as Agriculture
Officer, CCBF, Suratgarh. This is apparent from the order dated
22.12.99 (Arin.A/10 of OA 204/2000). It is also admitted fact
that by virtue of order dated 25.8.92 (Ann.A/6 to the same OA),
Shri Rathore was ordered to look after the current charge of the
post of Director, CCBF, Suratgarh. One Dr. B.S. Singh, was D
earlier posted as officiating Director and declared Head of office.
After posting of Dr. Singh, no declaration was made in favour of
Shri Rathore for his continuation as Head of Office. Applicants’
contention is ‘that since Dr. Singh, never took charge of the
responsibilities of Director, CCBF, Suratgarh, Shri H.S. Rathore, E
continued to function as Head of the Office. By order dated
15.7.99 one Shri M.N. Haque, was posted as Director and
ordered to take over charge of the post of Director, CCBF,
Suratgarh, from Shri H.S. Rathore. This order was stayed by
this Tribunal vide order dated 10.8.99, passed in OA 204/99. As
a consequence, Shri Rathore continued to look after the current F
duties of the post of Director, CCBF, Suratgarh.
12. Now the question which arises for our consideration
is whether an officer looking after the current duties of a
post, could exercise the statutory power as vested in the
regular incumbent of that post. In Government of India, G
Ministry of Home Affairs, OM No. F.7/14/61-Ests.(A)
dated 24.1.63, clarification was issued that;
‘an officer appointed to perform the current duties of
an appointment can exercise administrative or financial
H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A powers vested in the full-fledged incumbent of the post
but he cannot exercise statutory powers whether those
powers are derived direct from an act of parliament or
rules Regulations and By-Law made under various Articles
of the constitutions (e.g., Fundamental Rules
Classifications, Control and Appeal Rules Civil Services
B
Regulations Delegations of Financial Powers Rules etc.)’
(emphasis supplied)
13. By order dated 15.7.99 Shri. M.N. Hague, was posted as
Director, CCBF, but only by virtue of the direction of this Tribunal
C in OA. 204/99, Shri Rathore, was permitted to look after the
current charge. Obviously, this would not have empowered
Shri Rathore to exercise statutory powers of the post of
Director. For the purpose of statutory powers, he was only
an Agriculture Officer. Thus, the contention of the learned
counsel for the applicant that Shri Rathore had been declared as
D ‘Head of Office’ and so could have exercised powers of
appointment by virtue of Rule-2(j) of the CCS (CCA) Rules has
no force. In view of the specific clarification given under Rule-
12 in Government of India’s Order No.2 that an officer holding
current charge of duties of a post cannot exercise statutory
E powers. The conclusion is obvious that Shri H.S. Rathore,
at the time of recruiting the applicants, was only a
Agriculture Officer looking after the current charge of the
post of Director, CCBF, Suratgarh, and he had no authority
to make any appointment to Group – C & D. It is a clear
case of Shri Rathore exceeding his authority. Even if, he
F had processed the appointment, offer of appointments,
obviously could not have been made while and unless, he
had obtained approval from the Ministry of Agriculture.
In fact, he did make a reference to the Ministry on
16.11.99 seeking approval or filling up these posts but for
G reasons best known to him, he did not wait for this approval
and went ahead and offered appointments to these
applicants. This raise a serious doubt about the motive
behind the haste on the part of Shri Rathore, in appointing
these applicants. The plea now taken on his behalf that such
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH 1021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
approval was not required has no basis at all. This is more so, A
when the rules clearly provide that an officer looking after the
current charge should not have exercised statutory powers of
appointments.
14. These appointments are vitiated on other grounds also.
The fact that all the three applicants are related to Shri B
Rathore, cannot be a mere co-incidence and reflects on
the intention behind making these appointments. The ways
the selection committee has been constituted by including
even Group-C members, is indicative of the irregular
practice knowingly adopted by Shri Rathore while making
these appointments.” C
(emphasis supplied)
7. The Tribunal then adverted to the legal position that any
appointment made de hors the statutory rules has no validity and that
those who come by the back door have to return by the same back door D
and cannot claim protection of principles of natural justice. For that, the
Tribunal relied on the exposition of this Court in the case of Union of
India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran1, State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. U.P. State
Law Officers Association & Ors.2 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
& Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Das & Ors.3 and in conclusion, observed thus:
E
“17. In this case, Shri H.S. Rathore, not only acted totally
arbitrarily on every step of the process of recruitment but, acted
beyond his powers and jurisdiction while making the appointment.
For the view we have taken that these appointments were made
by an authority not competent to make such appointments, we
do not consider it necessary to go into the other aspects of the F
controversy that one the appointees did not possess the requisite
qualifications or that the currency of the sanction of the posts
had expired.
18. It is clear from the discussions in the preceding paragraphs
that these appointments have been made in a totally irregular G
manner by an authority not competent to make such
appointments. The appointment letters have been rightly
1
(1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 100
2
(1994) 2 SCC 204
3
(2002) 4 SCC 503 H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A cancelled and orders of cancellation do not call for any
interference by this Tribunal. The applicants have miserably failed
to establish any case in their favour. We dismiss these O.A. as
totally devoid of merits. No order as to costs.”
8. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition in the
B High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, being D. B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 4235 of 2002. The Division Bench of the High Court,
by judgment and order dated April 23, 2010, upheld the argument of the
respondent that the Office Order dated 29.08.2000 merely records one
fact that the appointment of the respondent was made without approval
of the competent authority. In such a case, the services of respondent
C could be terminated only after giving him opportunity of hearing. The
High Court observed thus:
“Upon perusal of the above order, it is abundantly clear that the
only reason for termination of the services of the petitioner was
that appointment was made without approval of the competent
D authority. No other ground with regard to competence of the
Director or with regard to allegation against the Director for
making illegal appointment is incorporated for establishing the
allegations. In this view of the matter, the reason for termination
of the services was not made known to the petitioner because
E the department neither issued any notice nor provide any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing order dated
29.08.2004. The only reason for terminating his services is that
appointment was made without approval of the competent
authority; meaning thereby, for contesting the matter before the
Tribunal the grounds other than the basic ground were submitted
F before the Tribunal which were meant to be basis for terminating
the services of the petitioner; meaning thereby, the grounds
agitated before the Tribunal were altogether different than the
reasons incorporated in the order Annex. – 4. In this view of the
matter, we are of the opinion that order of termination suffers
G from arbitrariness and illegality, so also, passed against the
principles of natural justice.
We are unable to understand the reason incorporated in the
reply filed by the respondents before the Tribunal because the
reasons incorporated in the reply for terminating the service of
H the petitioner are not mentioned in the termination order.”
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH 1023
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
9. The High Court then adverted to the decision of D.K. Yadav A
Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.4 and the decision of the Division Bench of
the same High Court in the case of Bhupal Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan5. Thereafter, the High Court concluded as follows:
“Upon assessment of the termination order, we are of the opinion
that the Tribunal has committed gross error while dismissing the B
original application filed by the petitioner. So also, the termination
order dated 29.8.2000 issued in violation of the principles of natural
justice by the Department for terminating the services of the
petitioner is patently illegal order and the same deserves to be
quashed.
C
Hence, while following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in D.K. Yadav’s case (supra) and judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Bhupa Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
(supra), this writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment
dated 06.06.2002 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application
No.206/2000 is set aside. The order dated 29.08.2000 (Annex.- D
4 to the original application), terminating the services of the
petitioner, is quashed and set aside. Further, it is made clear that
as a consequence of quashing termination order Annex. – 4, the
petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits except back-
wages and petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. E
Respondents will, however, be at liberty to pass fresh order for
terminating the services of the petitioner, in accordance with
law, if valid and lawful grounds exist to show that petitioner has
committed any illegality while seeking appointment.”
The High Court thus opined that the termination order could be passed F
only after giving opportunity to the respondent and not otherwise.
10. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the present Special Leave
Petition. This Court not only granted leave to appeal but also stayed the
operation of the impugned judgment during the pendency of the appeal
before this Court. G
11. According to the appellant, the High Court committed
manifest error in overturning a well considered decision of the Tribunal.
For, the fact that no prior approval of the competent authority as required
4
(1993) 3 SCC 259
5
(1988) 2 RLW 428 H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A under the statutory rules had been obtained before issuing the letter of
appointment in favour of the respondent, is indisputable. That reason
has been explicated in the subject office order dated 29.08.2000. The
High Court, without recording any opinion on the efficacy of that reason,
proceeded to set aside the subject office order on the ground that no
opportunity was given to the respondent before issuing the same. Relying
B
on the exposition in the cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra)
and State of Manipur and Ors. Vs. Y. Token Singh and Ors. 6, it is
contended that giving prior opportunity to the respondent before issuing
the subject office order was not obligatory; and no fruitful purpose
would have been served by giving such notice. The High Court, therefore,
C was manifestly wrong. It is submitted that prior approval of the competent
authority is the quintessence for issuing a valid and legal appointment
order. Whereas, appointment order issued in favour of the respondent
being void ab initio, the competent authority was duty bound to take
corrective and remedial action in the matter. That brooked no delay.
D 12. It is also submitted that the High Court mainly recorded three
aspects to interfere with the impugned office order. First, that the office
order does not state that the Director Incharge was not competent to
issue the appointment letter. Additionally, there is no tittle of indication in
the said order that the appointing authority committed any illegality in
making appointment. Second, the reason for termination of services of
E respondent was not made known to him by issuing a notice or by providing
him an opportunity of hearing. Third, the Tribunal took extraneous facts
into account to uphold the subject office order, by adverting to grounds
not referred to therein. It is submitted that none of the above, dealt with
the core reason noted in the subject office order - that the same was
F necessitated as an illegal appointment had been made by the then Director
Incharge H.S. Rathore, Agriculture Officer and without prior approval
of the competent authority. The appellant therefore, submits that the
impugned decision of the High Court is manifestly wrong and deserves
to be set aside and the order of the Tribunal ought to be restored, upholding
the office order dated 29.08.2000.
G
13. Per contra, the respondent has supported the reasons recorded
by the High Court and vehemently contends that no interference is
warranted. According to the respondent, the appointment of the
respondent has been made after adhering to necessary formalities
6
H (2007) 5 SCC 65
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH 1025
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
pursuant to a public advertisement, wherein the respondent emerged as A
the successful candidate. Only thereafter he was appointed to the post
of Veterinary Compounder. It is submitted that the respondent acquired
an indefeasible right to remain on that post and in service. According to
the respondent, his services could not be terminated without affording
opportunity of hearing. Only upon affording opportunity, the respondent
B
could have been able to point out that there was no illegality in his
appointment. Inasmuch as lack of approval of the competent authority
before issuance of the letter of appointment, does not render the
appointment void but at best, an irregularity. Since the appointment was
not void ab initio, no termination order could be issued without affording
opportunity to the respondent. The respondent has relied on the decisions C
of this Court in the case of The Remington Rand of India Ltd. Vs.
The Workmen7, Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal Vs. Parkash
Wanti (Smt.) (Dead) and Anr.8 and Montreal Street Railway Company
Vs. Normandin9. The respondent contends that the mere fact that the
High Court has not dealt with the reason stated in the subject office
D
order about the lack of approval of competent authority, can be no basis
to whittle down the indefeasible right enured to him. Further, deprivation
of opportunity of hearing before passing the termination order was fatal
as the said order entailed civil consequences to him. The respondent
prays for dismissal of the appeal.
14. We have heard the learned counsels for appellants Mr. A.K. E
Panda, Senior Advocate, Mrs. C.K. Sucharita, Mr. Shailender Saini, Mr.
Raj Bahadur and Mr. D.S. Mahra, and Dr. Manish Singhvi, Mr. Shailja
Nanda Mishra, Mr. Satyendra Kumar, Mr. Yuvraj Simant and Mr. Irshad
Ahmad, learned counsels for respondent.
15. Reverting to the subject office order, we are in agreement F
with the stand taken by the appellant that the same is a simpliciter
termination and is no reflection on the conduct of the respondent. It
merely explicates that his appointment was illegal having been made by
the then Director Incharge H.S. Rathore, Agriculture Officer and without
prior approval of the competent authority. No more and no less. G
16. We shall now consider the efficacy of the reason so recorded
in the office order. The recruitment procedure in relation to the post of
7
(1968) 1 SCR 164
8
(1995) 5 SCC 159
9
AIR (1917) Privy Council 142 H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A Veterinary Compounder is governed by the statutory rules titled ‘Central
Cattle Breeding Farms (Class III and Class IV posts) Recruitment Rules,
1969, as amended from time to time and including the executive
instructions issued in that behalf. As per the stated dispensation for such
recruitment, the appointment letter could be issued only by an authorised
officer and after grant of approval by the competent authority. Nowhere in
B
the Original Application filed by the respondent, it has been asserted that such
prior approval is not the quintessence for issuing a letter of appointment.
17. For taking this contention forward, we may assume, for the
time being, that the then Director Incharge H.S. Rathore, Agriculture
Officer had the authority to issue a letter of appointment. Nevertheless,
C he could do so only upon obtaining prior written approval of the competent
authority. No case has been made out in the Original Application that
due approval was granted by the competent authority before issue of
the letter of appointment to the respondent. Thus, it is indisputable that
no prior approval of the competent authority was given for the appointment
D of the respondent. In such a case, the next logical issue that arises for
consideration is: whether the appointment letter issued to the respondent,
would be a case of nullity or a mere irregularity? If it is a case of nullity,
affording opportunity to the incumbent would be a mere formality and
non grant of opportunity may not vitiate the final decision of termination
of his services. The Tribunal has rightly held that in absence of prior
E approval of the competent authority, the Director Incharge could not
have hastened issuance of the appointment letter. The act of commission
and omission of the then Director Incharge would, therefore, suffer from
the vice of lack of authority and nullity in law.
18. There is yet another aspect which has been glossed over by
F the High Court. The subject office order dated 29.08.2000 opens with
the statement that the same was issued in compliance with the Ministry’s
decision vide letter No.8-6/1999-ADMN.III dt.18.08.2000. By reference
to the said communication-cum-decision of the Ministry, it stood
incorporated in the subject office order. Besides, the subject office order
G explicitly states that the appointment of the respondent was illegally made
by the then Director Incharge H.S. Rathore, Agriculture Officer. This
reason of illegal appointment takes within its fold the unilateral constitution
of the selection Board (not in accordance with the prescribed constitution
of the selection Board) and also H.S. Rathore nominating himself as the
Chairman of such Board, although disqualified to be on the Board because
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH 1027
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
the candidate was related to him. As a result, the Ministry took holistic A
decision on 18.08.2000 at the highest level after reckoning all aspects of
the matter including that it was not just a solitary appointment of the
respondent, but also other appointment letters issued by H.S. Rathore
under his signature. All such appointments have been nullified by the
Ministry in the same manner in addition to initiating departmental action
B
against H.S. Rathore. Tersely put, all appointments made by H.S. Rathore
came under the scanner as being fraudulent and without authority. Such
appointments would obviously be a nullity in law.
19. The Tribunal had justly relied on the exposition in the cases
of M. Bhaskaran (supra) and in particular, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan (supra). In the latter case, in paragraph 5 of the reported C
decision, while dealing with a similar situation, the Court observed that if
the appointment letters are nullity, having been issued by an officer who
did not wield authority to do so, there was no question of observance of
principles of natural justice even though the affected party was not before
the Court. D
20. In the case of State of Manipur (supra), the appointment
letters were cancelled on the ground that the same were issued without
the knowledge of the department of the State. The Court after adverting
to the reported decisions concluded that the candidates were not entitled
to hold the posts and in a case of such nature, principles of natural justice E
were not required to be complied with, particularly when the same would
result in futility. It may be useful to advert to paragraph 22 of the reported
decision, which reads thus:
“22. The respondents, therefore, in our opinion, were not entitled
to hold the posts. In a case of this nature, where the facts F
are admitted, the principles of natural justice were not
required to be complied with, particularly when the same
would result in futility. It is true that where appointments had
been made by a competent authority or at least some steps have
been taken in that behalf, the principles of natural justice are
required to be complied with, in view of the decision of this Court G
in Murugayya Udayar 10.”
(emphasis supplied)
10
(1991) Supp. (1) SCC 331 H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A 20. In paragraph 30 of the reported decision, the Court adverted
to the exposition in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors.11 which
evolved the ‘useless formality’ theory. It is apposite to reproduce
paragraphs 30 to 32 of the reported judgment, which read thus:
“30. In M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India this Court developed
B the “useless formality” theory stating: (SCCPP.246-47, para 22)
“More recently Lord Bingham has deprecated the ‘useless
formality’ theory in R.v. Chief Constable of the Thames Valley
Police Forces, ex p Cotton12 by giving six reasons. (See also
his article ‘Should Public Law Remedies be Discretionary?
C 1991 PL, p.64.) A detailed and emphatic criticism of the ‘useless
formality theory’ has been made much earlier in ‘Natural
Justice, Substance or Shadow’ by Prof. D.H. Clark of Canada
(see 1975 PL, pp. 27-63) contending that Malloch and Glynn
were wrongly decided. Foulkes (Administrative Law, 8th Edn.,
1996, p.323), Craig (Administrative Law, 3rd Edn., p. 596) and
D others say that the Court cannot prejudge what is to be decided
by the decision-making authority. De Smith (5th Edn., 1994,
paras 10.031 to 10.036) says courts have not yet committed
themselves to any one view though discretion is always with
the court. Wade (Administrative Law, 5th Edn., 1994, pp. 526-
E 30) says that while futile writs may not be issued, a distinction
has to be made according to the nature of the decision. Thus,
in relation to cases other than those relating to admitted or
indisputable facts, there is a considerable divergence of opinion
whether the applicant can be compelled to prove that the
outcome will be in his favour or he has to prove a case of
F substance or if he can prove a ‘real likelihood’ of success or if
he is entitled to relief even if there is some remote chance of
success. We may, however, point out that even in cases where
the facts are not all admitted or beyond dispute, there is a
considerable unanimity that the courts can, in exercise of their
G ‘discretion’, refuse certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or
injunction even though natural justice is not followed. We may
also state that there is yet another line of cases as in State
11
(1999) 6 SCC 237
12
(1990) IRLR 344
H
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH 1029
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma 13, Rajendra Singh Vs. A
State of M.P.14 that even in relation to statutory provisions
requiring notice, a distinction is to be made between cases
where the provision is intended for individual benefit and where
a provision is intended to protect public interest. In the former
case, it can be waived while in the case of the latter, it cannot
B
be waived.”
(emphasis in original)
31. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan it was held: (SCC p.
505, para5)
“It is clear that if after the termination of services of the C
said Dr. K.C. Rakesh, 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.”
32. In Bar Council of India Vs. High Court of Kerala15 it D
was stated : (SCC p.323, para45)
“Principles of natural justice, however, cannot be
stretched too far. Their application may be subject to the
provisions of a statute or statutory rule.”
E
(emphasis supplied)
In the present case, the appointment letter was admittedly issued without
the approval of the competent authority.
22. In Dhirender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 16,
termination of the appellant therein albeit without notice, was not interfered F
with by the Court as admittedly the same was not approved by the
competent authority. The underlying principle will apply proprio vigore
to the present case, as the letter of appointment has been issued by an
officer who had no authority to do so and also because it was issued
without waiting for the approval of the competent authority. Resultantly,
there was no necessity to afford opportunity to the respondent before G
issuing the letter of cancellation of such appointment. The mere fact
13
(1996) 3 SCC 364
14
(1996) 5 SCC 460
15
(2004) 6 SCC 311
16
(1997) 2 SCC 712 H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A that such letter of appointment had been issued in favour of the respondent
does not bestow any right in his favour much less to insist for an
opportunity of being heard.
22. Reverting to the impugned decision of the High Court, the
High Court has not analysed the efficacy of the crucial reason recorded
B in the subject office order dated 29.08.2000 in its correct perspective.
Indeed, the High Court has noted that prior approval of the competent
authority was not mandatory. That observation, in our opinion, is manifestly
wrong. We affirm the view expressed by the Tribunal that the appointment
of respondent was not in conformity with the governing Rules and
executive instructions in that regard.
C
23. Further, the High Court could not have interfered with the
subject office order solely on the ground that it was issued without
affording an opportunity to the respondent. The other reason which had
weighed with the High Court, in our opinion, will be of no avail to the
fact situation of the present case. To wit, the fact that the subject office
D order does not attribute any motives to the then Director Incharge, can
be no basis to invalidate the same. In our opinion, the office order records
just and tangible reason as to why the appointment of the respondent is
illegal. Unless the core reason mentioned in the subject office order was
found to be untenable, the High Court could not have concluded that the
E subject office order was vitiated merely because it was issued without
notice or lack of opportunity to the respondent. Similarly, the fact that
the Tribunal has taken note of other grounds urged by the parties (other
than the reason noted in the subject office order), per se, cannot be the
basis to invalidate the subject office order which is otherwise just and
proper. The High Court could have ignored those other reasons/grounds
F taken into account by the Tribunal.
24. Reverting to the decisions relied upon by the respondent, we
fail to understand as to how the decision in the case of The Remington
Rand of India Ltd. (supra) will be of any avail to the respondent. In
that case, the Court was called upon to consider the effect of not
G publishing the award passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal within the statutory
period. In the context of that question, the Court opined that the provision
in Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was merely directory and
not mandatory and on that basis concluded that publication of award
beyond 30 days would not make it invalid. In the present case, the letter
H of appointment could be issued by the designated director and only after
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH 1031
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
grant of prior approval from the competent authority (the superior A
authority in the hierarchy of administrative set up). Without such approval,
the then Director Incharge in no case could have rushed through the
process of issuing the letter of appointment, an action which was without
authority of law and a nullity.
25. In the case of Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal (supra), B
the Court considered the distinction between ministerial acts and statutory
or quasi judicial functions under the statute and, in that context, observed
that something should be done or in a particular manner and expressly
declaring what shall be the consequence of non compliance, the effect
thereof would be to treat the infraction as a mere directory requirement
and not invalidate the action, so as to disregard the same. The principle C
expounded in this decision will be of no avail to the respondent. In light
of factual matrix of this case, the letter of appointment in favour of the
respondent was issued illegally by the Director Incharge H.S. Rathore,
Agriculture Officer and without prior approval of the competent authority.
It was a nullity. D
26. Even the case of Montreal Street Railway Company (supra)
cannot come to the rescue of the respondent. In the present case, the
requirement to obtain prior approval of the competent authority has been
made an essential requirement and only then would the appointing authority
be competent to issue letter of appointment. For, after the proposal is E
submitted for approval to the competent authority through proper channel
by the official duly authorised to do so, the competent authority would
reckon all aspects of the matter including whether the selection process
has been properly followed in all respects. That would include the question
such as whether the then Director Incharge could have constituted the
Board of seven members, contrary to the established norms and moreso F
to act as Chairman of such a Board after full knowledge that the candidate
appearing for the interview was his relative.
27. We have no hesitation in concluding that in the fact situation
of the present case, giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent before
issuance of the subject office order was not an essential requirement G
and it would be an exercise in futility. For the view that we have taken,
the exposition in D.K. Yadav (supra), which commended to the High
Court, in our opinion, has no application to the fact situation of the present
case concerning an appointment which is void ab initio and nullity.
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.
A 28. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order
of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal dated 06.06.2002, dismissing the Original Application filed by
the respondent.
30. The appeal succeeds in the above terms with no order as to
B costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service law"Sign in to search