ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 16-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 16, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law-Appointment~Procedur~Existence of law or statutory 
rule~T11hether a precondition either to post or to fill up that post-Existence 
of a post-Whether a condition precedent for appointment-Casual 
labourer~Whether holders of post~Regulalisation-Procedure to be f al-
lowed-Advertisement of post-Whether necessary-Non-information to 
employment exchange for filling up posts-Non preparation of any panel by 
Selection Committe~Whether fatal-Requirements of natural justic~Ter­
mination of service-Natural Justice -Principles Requirements of-Validity 
of tennination orders----Matters refe1red to larger Bench. 
Eradication of Tuberculosis was taken up as a part of 20 point 
programme in Planned Expenditure. The activities in the Tuberculosis 
Center at Patna were extended to various districts. The Director of the 
Center one ·Mr. M was made Deputy Director of the Scheme. The Govern-
ment had also issued directions to the District Medical officers to abide 
by the instruction of the Deputy Director in implementation of the 
Programme. He was made the Chairman of the Selection Committee 
constituted by the Government to recruit 2250 posts of Class III and Class 
IV employees created to implement the Scheme in addition to around 800 
to 900 staff in Patna Centre in all categories. Mr. M appointed around 
6000 persons without any written orders. Questions relating to this came 
to be asked even on the floor of the Assembly when the concerned Minister 
stated that the appointments had been given after following all procedures. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Due to the agitation, the Director and Joint Secretary to the Government 
Health Department had issued directions to regularise the service of daily G 
rated Class III and Class IV employees. Regularisation of many of them 
including most of the appellants was made. Various persons not getting 
their salary, though appointed, filed writ petitions before the High Court. 
The High Court directed the Government to constitute an enquiry commit-
tee to find out whether the appointments made by Mr. M. were valid and 
if so, to pay salary to such employees. Pursuant to these observations, a H 
367 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Screening Committee came to be formed which sought to serve notice on 
the employees. When the Deputy Director went to the Centre to serve the 
notice on the employees, he was manhandled. In consequence, the Com-
mittee issued a general notice through newspapers to all concerned and 
directed them to appear before the Committee for personal hearing. About 
B 
987 employees appeared before the Committee and submitted their state-
ments. In the meanwhile relevant records were burnt out. The High Power 
Committee in the absence of authentic record, relying upon the statement 
made by the employee before it and considering the record placed before 
it, found that Mr; M did not make any order of appointment on daily-wage 
basis; that the initial appointments made were in violation of the instruc-
C 
tions issued by the Government; that Mr. M. circumvented the rules by 
making adjustment by transfer without verifying the qualifications, 
eligibility or disclosing previous places whereat the candidates appointed 
had worked and dates of their appointment and by transferring them to 
the respective places by cyclostyled orders; that the third category of 
D person appointed were producing fabricated orders of appointment. The 
Committee directed to cancel all the appointments made by Mr. M. The 
Government also directed the Vigilance Department to enquire into the 
matter. The Vigilance Department in its report pointed out that Mr. M 
had violated the rules of recruitment and in collusion with other officers 
had appointed daily rated Class III and Class IV employees. The Govern-
E 
ment cancelled all the appointments. When their legality was challenged 
in the writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the High 
Court upheld the Government action. Hence these appeals by special leave. 
The appellants alleged that casual appointments are not to any 
p 
posts; that eradiction of tuberculosis urgently required to be done on 
war-footing which relieved the Joint Director to dispense with normal 
procedure of recruitment and he being exclusive centralised authority to 
appoint Class II and Class IV casual emp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.