DIVISIONAL FORESTS OFFICER AND ORS. versus M. RAMALINGA REDDY

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 1068 · Decided: 10-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DIVISIONAL FORESTS OFFICER AND ORS. 
y-
v. 
M. RAMALINGA REDDY 
APRIL 10, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
• 
Service Law: 
Appointment-Post of foresters-Candidate's name enlisted in the list 
• 
c by employment exchange by fraud, selected but not appointed-Pursuant to 
interim order in writ petition letter of appointment issued-Subsequently, 
dismissal of writ petition-Show cause notice to the candidate as to why 
appointment not be cancelled-Writ petition by candidate without giving 
reply to notice-High Court directing continuity of service-Maintainability 
D of writ petition against show cause notice-Held: No writ petition would be 
maintainable at that stage-Candidate was required to show cause as to 
why his services should not be terminated-Appointment was not pursuant 
tr~ 
to selection made in his favour but pursuant to interim order by High Court 
which came to an end upon dismissal of writ petition-Thus, selected 
E 
candidate has no legal right to continue in service thereafter-Employment 
Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959-Constitution 
...
of India, 1950-Artic/e 226. 
For the post of Foresters, the Employment exchange sponsored names 
of the candidates. Candidate registered upto 1970 were considered. In 1979 
~ 
F 
the list of selected candidates was sent to the employer. Respondent was 
registered with the employment exchange in 1976. It is alleged that the 
~ 
respondent in connivanc2 with the Assistant in the exchange got his name 
... 
enlisted in the list of the candidates registered upto 1970 and was selected. 
Appellant came to know about the same and offer of appointment was not issued. 
Respondent filed an application. Tribunal directed for conduct of enquiry. 
G During pendency, respondent filed writ petition. Interim order was passed to 
consider the case of the respondent for appointment and the respondent was 
issued offer of appointment However, High Court dismissed the writ petition 
as it was not maintainable. Thereafter, Employment Officer sent a report to 
the appellant holding the respondent guilty of misconduct Respondent filed 
}-..-
H 
1068 
DIVISIONAL FORESTS OFFICER v. M. RAMALINGA REDDY 
1069 
original application challenging the order of the Employment Officer and A 
directions to allow him all service benefits as Forester from the date of 
selection. During pendency, appellant issued show cause notice to the 
respondent as to why his name should not be removed from the post Tribunal 
dismissed the application and directed the respondent to submit explanation 
to the show cause notice. Aggrieved respondent filed writ petition which was B 
allowed and the respondent was directed to be continued in service. Hence the 
:,, 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Employment Exchange sought to withdraw the C 
sponsorship of the respondent since a Junior Assistant in the Exchange had 
connived with the respondent in the matter of sponsoring of his name in 1979 
although he was not entitled therefore. In absence of his name having been 
legally sponsored, the candidature of the respondent could not have been 
considered for appointment as a Forester. Such a view appears to have been 
taken by the Employment Officer. It sent a report in that behalf. Appellant D 
No. 1 intended to give effect to the aid report. For the said purpose, it had 
issued a show cause notice. [Paras 7 and 8] [1072-G-H; 1073-A-B] 
1.2. A selected candidate has no legal right to be appointed automatically. 
Respondent claims his right to continue in service only because he was 
selected. [Para 10) [1073-C) 
E 
1.3. High Court in passing the impugned judgment, with respect, did 
not pose unto itself a right question. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the 
said show cause notice, respondent was required to show cause as to why his 
services should not be terminated. Therefore, the observations of the High 
Court, to the effect that he having been appointed on 23.4.1982 on the minimum F 
scale of pay, cannot be permitted to continue to draw the same scale of pay as 
applicable in 1978 without any revisional increments was wholly irrelevant 
[Para 11) [1073-D-E} 
1.4. It is not a case where the notice was issued wholly without G 
jurisdiction. It is also not a case where the said notice was otherwise illegal. 
It is also not a case where an order has been passed without application of 
mind. It is also not a case where the appellant had made up its mi

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