MUKESH KUMAR BADONI versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 1017 · Decided: 04-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 3 S.C.R. 1017 
MUKESH KUMAR BADONI 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1731 of 2008) 
MARCH 4, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Termination - Appellant appointed on probation of one 
year - He did not have requisite qualification - Appointment C 
not approved by competent authority as required- Termination 
of Appellant within period of probation - Writ petition filed by 
him - Dismissed by High Court - Justification of - Held: 
Justified - No case for interference ulart. 136 - Constitution of 
India, 1950- arts.226 and 136. 
D 
Appellant was appointed as a Chowkidar in 
Respondent No.3-college on probation of one year. The 
appointment was subject to approval of the Director of 
Public Instructions, Punjab, Chandigarh. The said 
authority purportedly declined to accord approval of the • E 
appointment of Appellant on the ground that he did not 
have the requisite qualiftcation of having cleared Punjabi 
as a subject in Class VIII. Appellant was relieved from his 
duties within the period of probation. He filed writ petition 
before High Court which was dismissed. 
F 
The Appellants contended before this Court that the 
stand taken by Respondents that the Director of Public 
Instructions had refused to accord his approval was 
factually incorrect and in that view of the matter the 
impu9Jled judgment of the High Court should be set a~ide. G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
' ' 
HELD: 1.1. It is now conceded before this Court that 
1017 
H 
1018 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A the Director of Public Instructions expressly had not 
refused to accord its approval to the appointment of the 
t, 
appellant in the College. Such a stand, therefore, ought 
not to have been taken. It is expected of an educational 
institutional to take a fair stand before a Court of Law. 
B [Para 9] (1021-C, D] 
1.2. It, however, appears from the records of the case 
that the sanction for the said appointment was not 
"'~ 
received by the Institute. The salary of the appellant was 
being paid by the College itselffrom its funds and not from 
c the grant received from the State. It may be that the 
Respondents had taken different stands at different 
stages but the fact remains that the services of Appellant 
have not been approved by the Director ef Public 
Instructions. He does not possess the requisite 
D qualification. Unless an express approval of the 
competent authority is granted, he cannot be permitted 
to continue in services with the College. [Paras 10, 13] 
[1021-D, E; 1022-A, B] 
E 
2.1. Appellant passed his Matriculation examination 
from Uttar Pradesh. He, in view of the reply of the College 
to the Advocate for the appellant, must have knowledge 
that one of the requisite qualifications required for his 
appointment was that he must had Punjabi as a subject 
F 
in VIII class. (Para 11] (1021-E, F] 
,,, 
2.2. In his writ petition, however, the appellant did not 
state that he possessed the said qualification. Even in the 
.. .., 
special leave petition he did not make any statement that 
he holds the requisite qualification. If he does not possess 
G the requisite qualification, this Court and also for that 
matter the High Court, could not issue a writ, which would 
,....
be futile in nature. [Para 12] [1021-G; 1022-A] 
3. The present case is not a fit case where this Court 
could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the 
H Constitution. [Para 14] (1022-8, C] 
MUKESH KUMAR BADONI v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND 
1019 
ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
.r 
CIVILAPPELLATE'JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1731 
A 
of 2008. 
From the final order dated 2/9/2003 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 13836/2003. 
V. Shekhar, S. Ganesh and V. Sivasubramanian for the 
B 
Appellant. 
Ajay Pal and Vinay Kumar Garg for the Respondents . 
. . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
c 
1. Appellant was employed as a Chowkidar by the 
respondent No.3. He applied for his appointment to the said 
post of Chowkidar upon having come to learn that the same 
• 
was lying vacant. Respondent No.3 had issued an offer of D 
• 
appointment in his favour on or about 3rct August, 2002. His 
appointment was to be on probation for one year and subject to 
approval of Director of Public Instructions Pnnjab, Chandigarh. 
He was, however, relieved from his duties with effect from 281h 
July, 2003 on the premise that his services were no longer 

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