LexNAGENDRA CHANDRA ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c NAGENDRA CHANDRA ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. NOVEMBER 28, 2007 [B.N. AGRA WAL, T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Service Law: Bihar Police Manual: r. 663(d)-Termination of services of Police Constables-On the ground that vacancies were neither advertised in newspaper nor through Employment Exchange, but displayed on notice Board in office of Zonal Inspector General of Police-HELD: D Appointments made were not only in infraction of r.663(d) but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution-The competent authority was quite justified in terminating the services of the appointees-However, their cases may be considered for future appointment relaxing age bar-Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16. E A large number of Police Constables were dismissed from service on the ground that the vacancies were neither advertised in the newspaper nor through the Employment Exchange, as envisaged by Rule 6(;3( d) of the Bihar Police Manual, but were displayed on F the notice board in the office of Zonal Inspector General. The Division Bench of the High Court ultimately upheld the decision of the competent authority with the modification that dismissal from service should be treated as orders of termination. In the instant appeal filed by the Constables, the question that G arose for determination was: Whether the appointments of the appellants being in infraction of Rule 663( d) ofBihar Police Manual were irregular or illegal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 008 NAGENDRACHANDRAETC.ETC. v. STATE 609 HELD: 1.1. From a bare perusal of Rule 663( d) ofBihar Police A Manual it would be clear that the requirement of the Rule is to notify the vacancies in newspapers and to advertise the same through employment exchange, which, undisputedly, has not been done in the present case as here the vacancies were notified through notice displayed on the notice board. [Para 6) [612-F, G] B 1.2. If an appointment is made in infraction of the requirement rules, the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, being nullity, would be liable to be cancelled. In the instant case, as the vacancies were not advertised in the newspapers, the appointments made were not only in infraction of C Rule 663( d) of the Bihar Police Manual but also violative of Articles 14and16 of the Constitution, which rendered the appointments of the appellants as illegal; as such the competent authority was quite justified in terminating their services and the High Court was quite justified in upholding the same. [Para 9) [614-C, D, EJ D Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors., [2006] 4 SCC 1; Ashwani Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1996] 7 SCC 577; Ashwani Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1997] 2 SCC 1 and National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir Singh, E [2006] 5 sec 493, relied on. 1.3. However, in view of the fact that the appellants have continued in service for a period of fourteen years, their cases may be considered for future appointment and age bar, if any, may be relaxed in relation to them. [Para 10] [614-E, F] F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5460- 5465 of 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.2005 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. Nos. 2469, 2470, 2471, 3911, 4831 and G 5697 of 2004. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Rudreshwar Singh, Tapesh Singh, Kumar Ranjan, Kaushik Poddar, Gopal Kumar Jha and Sanjay Jain for the Appellants. H 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A P.S. Mishra, Ratan Kumar Chaudhuri, Dhruv Kumar Jha, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Upendra Mishra and Manu Shanker Mishra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B B.N. AGRA WAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants along with several others were appointed as constables in the year 1990 pursuant to vacancies notified through notice displayed on the notice board in the Office of Zonal Inspector General, C Ranchi. Subsequently, when it transpired that the vacancies were neither advertised through the employment exchange nor in the newspapers, the Director General - cum - Inspector General of Police directed that all such persons, including the appellants, be dismissed from service and consequentially they were dismissed. Some of the constables filed writ petitions challenging the orders of their dismissal which were quashed by D a learned Single Judge of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.