STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus CHANDRESHWAR PATHAK

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 07-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 9 S.C.R. 391 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
CHANDRESHWAR PATHAK 
' 
(Civil Appeal No.7392 of 2014) 
AUGUST 07, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
8 
Appointment -
Temporary appointment of constable c 
made by order of Director General of Police without advertising 
the post - Set aside by single Judge of High Court - Appeal 
of constable allowed by Division Bench of High Court - Held: 
Appointment even on temporary post without inviting 
applications from all eligible candidates violates the 
0 
mandates of Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution - In the instant 
case, in the absence of any advertisement or selection 
process, appointment of respondent is not protected and 
could be validly terminated -
Single Judge of the High Court 
was justified in dismissing the writ petition while Division 
E 
Bench erred in interfering with the same - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Arts. 14 and 16: 
The respondent was tempor,arily appointed to the 
post of constable by the lnspectdr General of Police, 
Criminal Investigation Department, by his order dated 
F 
14.01.1988 with the stipulation that his service could be 
terminated without assigning any teason or show cause. 
In the year 2000, the High Court of Patna considered the 
issue of backdoor appointments made in the police 
department in another case which led to review of G 
irregular appointments. Accordingly, a show cause notice 
dated 10.09.2003 was issued to the respondent and since 
no valid reason was shown in his reply, the order dated 
391 
H 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A 26.09.2003 was passed terminating his services. The writ 
petition filed by the. respondent was dismissed by the 
single Judge of the High Court, but his appeal was 
allowed by the Division Bench. 
In the instant appeal filed by the State Government, 
8 the question for consideration~f _the Court was as to 
whether the appointment of the respondent made without 
any advertisement 'Or selection process could be 
considered to be a valid appointment to a public post 
C protected under Arts. 14 or 311 of the Constitution of 
India. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. No person can be appointed even on a 
0 temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications 
from all eligible candidates, and if done so, such a course 
violates the mandates of Arts. 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who 
are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person 
E employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled 
to any relief including salary. [para 14] [399-H; 400-A-C] 
State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty 2011 (2) SCR 
704 = (2011) 3 sec 436 - relied on. 
F 
1.2. In the instant case, the appointment has been 
given only on the asking of the Inspector General of 
Police. There is nothing to show that any advertisement 
was issued giving opportunity to all eligible candidates 
to compete or any selection process was undertaken 
G before appointment of the respondent. Moreover, another 
Division Bench of the same High Court has upheld 
terminatioh in· similar matter against Which S.L.P. has 
been dismissed by this Court. [para 13 and 15) [389-G- -
H; 399-A; 400-D-E] 
H 
1.3. Accordingly, it has to be held that in the absence 
STATE OF BIHAR v. CHANDRESHWAR PATHAK 
393 
of any advertisement or selection process, the 
A 
,appointment of the respondent is not p_rotected and 
could be validly terminated. The Single Judge was 
justified in dismissing the writ petition while the Division 
Bench erred in interfering with the same. The order 
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set 
B 
aside and that passed by the single Judge of the High 
Court restored. [para 16-17] [400-E-G] 
Case Law Reference: 
2011 (2) SCR 704 
relied on· 
para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7392 
,of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2012 in LPA 
c 
No. 945/2010, 05.01.2012 in CWJC No. 204/2004 of the High 
D 
Court of Patna. 
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar for the Appellants. 
Manoj R. Sinha, T. Mahipal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
2. This appeal has b.een preferred by the State of Bihar 
against the order dated 05.01.2012 of the Division Bench of 
F 
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LP.A. No.945 of 2010, 
which has the effect of quashing the order dated 26.09.2003 
passed by the of Criminal Investigation Department,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.