RAJENDRA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 25-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 421 
... 
RAJENDRA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2091-2092 of 2008) 
MARCH 25, 2008 
B 
(S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
Cancellation of appointment - Resolution dated March 
1, .2000 imposing ban on appointment and dated June 29, c 
2000 providing relaxation to certain category issued by 
Government of Maharashtra - Appointment of Junior Clerk 
against post reserved for OBC category - Canceling of, in 
terms of Resolution dated March 1, 2000 - Correctness of -
Held: Appointment made after obtaining approval from D 
'f 
authority-Authority withdrawing approval abruptly after a lapse 
of 17 months - Such an action appears to be high handed 
and is totally incorrect on the part of the authorities - From the 
resolution dated 29.6.2000, it is clear that the post reserved 
for backward classes would not have been covered by the 
E 
Circular dated March 1, 2000 -
The post advertised for the 
said appointment meant for OBC category- Moreover, status 
of the incumbent belonging to OBC not in challenge - The 
post was filled up in accordance with the roaster point after 
approval from the authorities -
The order canceling the 
F 
appointment was passed by the authorities without hearing the 
... 
incumbent and without assigning any reasons thereof- Hence, 
disapproved. 
Appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk by the 
respondent against the post reserved for OBC, after G 
seeking approval from the competent authority. Later his 
appointment was cancelled on the ground that it was not 
.. 
in accordance with the rules. Appellant made a 
representation against the order of cancellation of the 
421 
H 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A appointment but no response was received from 
~ .
respondent No.2. He, therefore, filed a writ petition before 
the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court 
holding that the appointment in question was contrary to 
the Government Resolution dated March 1, 2000, as the 
B Government had imposed ban on the recruitment for the 
posts which have fallen vacant due to retirement/ 
resignation/death of incumbent. The review petition was 
also dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present 
appeals. 
c 
Appellant contended that High Court had failed to 
take into account the true spirit of the Government 
Resolution dated 1.3.2000 as also the subsequent 
Government Resolution dated 29.6.2000; that firstly the 
ban effected by the Government Resolution dated 
D 1.3.2000 did not apply to the posts which were fallen 
vacant due to promotion; that the ban related to the posts 
1 
which had fallen vacant on account of retirement, 
voluntary retirement, resignation or death of an employee 
but not on account of promotion; that the Resolution was 
E not applicable to the reserved posts; and that the order 
passed by the authorities was behind the back of the 
appellant or the Management and without giving any 
opportunity of hearing to him. 
F 
Respondent contended that the High Court had 
rightly dismissed the writ petition since the initial 
appointment itself was in total derogation of the ban 
» 
created by Government Resolution dated 1.3.2000; that 
though the Governmtmt had relaxed the condition for 
recruitment of the vacant posts reserved for backward 
G classes as also the posts reserved for the project affected 
persons and the appointments on compassionate 
grounds, the appellant was not appointed on a post meant 
for the backward classes as it was clear from the 
,.._ 
advertisement that even the persons from open category 
H could have applied for the same; and that the question of 
RAJENDRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
423 
natural justice could not have been raised as the approval A 
was erroneously granted by the second respondent and 
the initial appointment itself was illegal or invalid. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The order impugned in the writ petition 
B 
withdrawing the approval was passed abruptly and it 
.... 
came as a bolt from the blue to the appellant. The said 
approval was granted on 17.3.2001 which clearly shows 
that the approval was granted for three persons, one of 
them was promoted to the post of Chief Clerk w.e.f. c 
1.11.2000, another person was promoted to the post of 
Junior Clerk w.e.f. 1.11.2000 and the appellant who was 
appointed on the post of Junior Clerk w.e.f. 1.11.2001. The 
communication clearly suggests that the approval was 
granted to all the three w.e.f. 1.1

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