STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. versus MANSHU KUMBHKAR

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1069 · Decided: 17-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MANSHU KUMBHKAR 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 
[DR. ARJJIT PASAYA T AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law-Termination of Service-On the ground that appointment 
was illegal and was made without following the procedure-High Court 
setting aside termination on the ground that termination of a similarly C 
situated employee set aside in another case-On appeal, held: Order of High 
Court is not sustainable-Reliance on the case of another employee was 
misconceived as his termination was set aside on the ground of delay-The 
appointment having been proved illegal, the mistake committed in another 
case, cannot be perpetuated in the present case. 
Appointments were made to the post of Class HI and IV by the Deputy 
Director of Education without following the norms fixed by administrative 
instructions. Respondent was one of the appointees. Respondent's case was 
that advertisement as well as interview letter was issued. The case of the State 
was that same were fabricated as there was no entry in the dispatch register 
D 
for these two dates. The illegal appointments were cancelled by the State. E 
Respondent filed Writ Petition, wherein High Court directed the respondent 
to make fresh representation before the Authority and directed the concerned 
authority to make an inquiry into the matter. After inquiry, it was found that 
all appointments were illegal. The services of the respondent as well as others 
were terminated. Respondent filed Writ Petition challenging the same. Single F 
Judge of High Co,urt set aside the termination on the ground that Division 
Bench of High Court in an LPA had set aside termination of a similarly 
situated employee 'S'. Division Bench of High Court confirmed the order of 
Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The order of the Single Judge, as maintained by the Division 
Bench of High Court cannot be sustained. Reliance by the High Court on the 
order passed in case of 'S' was thoroughly misconceived. LPA in his case 
1069 
G 
H 
1070 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A was dismissed on the ground of delay. Even otherwise, merely because mistake 
had been committed in one case, there is no rational for perpetuating that 
mistake, even when the same is illegally impermissible. In terms of the 
executive instructions, specified procedure was to be adopted. 
[Paras 11 and 8] [1076-E; 1072-F] 
B 
2. In the instantcase, the norms have been fixed not by any Rule but by 
administrative instructions. There was no advertisement and there was not 
even any properly constituted committee to make the selection. The stand that 
letter of appointment as well as advertisement was issued clearly gets negatived 
when the entries from the dispatch register are noted. 
C 
[Para 6] [1072-B, C] 
Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1997) 2 SCC 1 
and Secretaty, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., (2006] 4 
sec 1, relied on. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4310 of2007. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated I0.01.2005 ofthe High Court of 
Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 861 of2003. · 
B.B. Singh and Kumar Rajesh Singh for the Appellant. 
Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. l. Leave granted. 
F 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 
of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the 
appellant-State and its functionaries. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
G 
One Miss Suraj Mani Khalko, a few days before her retirement made 
many appointments to the posts of Class III and Class IV employees without 
following the procedure of appointment stipulated . by instruction dated 
3.12.1980. No records were available in the office for such appointments, 
namely, advertisement, requisition to employment exchange, committee for 
H preparing panel to be chaired by bistrict Magistrate, with District Welfare 
STATE v. MANSHUKUMBHKAR[PASAYAT,J.] 
1071 
> 
Officer and three officers of different district levels. According to the A 
respondent advertisement was issued for Class III and Class IV employees 
on 4.6.1993 and on 12.7.1993 interview letters were issued. According to the 
appellants all these were signed by Miss Suraj Mani Khalko and were fabricated 
and forged documents and were never issued by the department which is 
manifest from the dispatch reg

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