PRAMOD LAHUDAS MESHRAM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 11-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
< 
PRAMOD LAHUDAS MESHRAM 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Selection-Post of Oversear/Junior Engineer (Civil Enginee1ing)-Ad-
ve1tisement-On the basis of recommendation letter from Member-Secret01y C 
3 candidates appointed on probation for one yea~Services of the said 
candidates tenninated on the basis that the earlier letters canied unauthorised 
reconunendatiims-W!it Petition filed in High Cowt challenging the tennina-
tion orders dismissed-On appeal held the letter$ of recommendation were 
not auth01ised and according to mies-Therefore the cancellation of the said 
appointments could not be found fault with-State Govemment directed to D 
refer the matter to appropriate State CID enquiry to make an independent 
investigation into the matter and to find out as to who were responsible for 
such malpractice and to launch approp1iate C1iminal prosecution against the 
culprits. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 19775 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.96 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 885 of 1993. 
AK. Sanghi and S.V. Deshpande for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
E 
F· 
The petitioner complains that he being a qualified candidate with G 
Diploma in Engineering and Secondary Education had applied for the post 
of Oversear/Junior Engineer (Civil Engineering) as per the advertisement 
dated April 30, 1991 published in daily 'Tarun Bharat' on May 2, 1991. 
The advertisement indicated that of the 3 posts, two were reserved for 
backward classes and one was for general candidates. Petitioner being a H 
117 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
reserved class, hailing from che Scheduled Caste, received letter of appoint-
ments from the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli; in 
letter No. PWB/Estt-1/1108/1/93 dated March 31, 1993 it was stated that a 
recommendation had been made by Member Secretary, Regional Subor-
dinate Service Seleccion Board, Nagpur in their letter No. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
RSB,:Nag/1210/M-792/PS-l/92 dated June 15, 1992 that 3 candidates were 
selected. The names had been repeated and as regards the petitioner, his 
recommendation letter No. RSB/N~g/1160/M-792/1992/PS-I dated July 31, 
1992/7.8.92 was said to be issued by the Member Secretary selecting the 
petitioner as Junior Engineer (Civil). Pursuant thereto, he came to be 
appointed as a Junior Engineer with probation for one year. After comple-
tion of nine months service, he received the letter dated November 16, 1992 
stating therein that the above letters carried unauthorised recommenda-
tions; therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The order 
of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli was impugned 
by the petitioner and others in the W.P. No. 885/93 in the High Court of 
Bombay, Nagpur Bench claiming that they had been regularly appointed 
to the posts which were advertised; therefore, their services could not be 
terminated during t~e probation period without affording opportunity of 
hearing in the enquiry. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition. 
Thus, this special leave petition. 
Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended 
that when the posts were advertised and the candidates were found eligible, 
it does not mandate that there should be an interview and selection. 
Obviously, the Service Selection Board having found the petitioner to be 
eligible and qualified, recommended him and was accordingly appointed 
p 
as Junior Engineer, when it was sought to be cancelled on a letter written 
by Member Secretary of the Service Selection Board, they are entitled to 
be heard. No such opportunity has ever been given before cancellation of 
their appointments. It was, therefore, violative of principles of natural 
justice. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that on their own 
admission they have merely applied for the post pursuant to an advertise-
G ment made for the selection. It is the case of the Selection Board that a 
regular selection has to be made and selecting the eligible candidates, 
recommendation for appointment would be made. Therefore, the letter can 
be said to have conveyed that the recommendations were not authorised 
and according to the rules; such being the admitted position, we do not 
H find any fault to cat).cel the a

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