STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. versus Y. TOKEN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 965 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

" 
-
STA TE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. 
A 
--'r 
v. 
Y. TOKEN SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
-
~ 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16 and 309. 
c 
Revenue department-Field staff -Appointments of -Without the 
knowledge of the State Government-Validity of-No recruitment rules framed 
for appointment in the Revenue department particularly the field staff thereof 
-The Commissioner (Revenue) allegedly appointed some persons to the 
posts of Mandols, Process-Servers and Zilladars which was not within the D 
knowledge of the State Government-The said appointments were made on 
a temporary basis-No record in regard to the said appointments was 
~ 
maintained-Subsequently, the Commissioner denied having made the said 
• 
appointments-Hence, the said appointments were cancelled-However, the 
High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the said persons on the ground 
that the principles of natural justice were not complied with-Correctness E 
of-Held: Although the State had not framed any recruitment rules in terms 
of the proviso appended to Article 309, the same by itself would not clothe 
the Commissioner of Revenue to make recruitments in violation of the 
provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16-The purported appointment 
letters were fake ones-They were not issued by any authority competent F 
-\ 
therefor-Jn a case of this nature, where the facts are admitted, the principles 
~~ 
of natural justice were not required to be complied with-High Court judgment 
set aside. 
The State Government had not framed any recruitment rules for 
appointment inter alia in the Revenue Department and in particular the field G 
staff thereof. The Commissioner of Revenue Department was conferred with 
,.. 
the power of being the cadre controlling authority for non-ministerial post of 
the Revenue Department. He was also the Chairman of the Departmental 
promotion Committee for non-ministerial post of the Revenue Department. 
.. 
965 
H 
y 
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Commissioner allegedly appointed the respondents to the posts of 
":> 
Mandols, Process-Servers and Zilladars which was not within the knowledge 
,--._ 
' 
of the State. The said appointments were made on a temporary basis. 
No record in regard to the said recruitments was maintained. An inquiry 
was, therefore, made to find out the authority which had issued the said offers 
B of appointments. The Commissioner (Revenue) denied having made any 
appointment of field staffs of the Revenue Department. In view of the stand 
taken by the Commissioner (Revenue), the offers of appointment issued in 
favour of the respondents were cancelled. 
>-
c 
The writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed by the High 
Court on the ground that the principles of natural justice having not been 
complied with, the impugned orders could not be sustained. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. The State, while offering appointments, having regard to the 
constitutional scheme adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
of India, must comply with its constitutional duty, subject to just and proper 
exceptions, to give an opportunity of being considered for appointment to all 
I-
persons eligible thereof. (Para 141 
E 
2. The posts of field staffs of the Revenue Department of the State of 
Manipur were, thus, required to be filled up having regard to the said 
constitutional scheme. Although the State had not framed any recruitment 
rules in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of 
India but the same by itself would not clothe the Commissioner of Revenue to 
make recruitments in violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 
F 16 of the Constitution oflndia: [Para 15) 
t 
3. The offers of appointment issued in favour of the respondents were 
cancelled inter alia on the premise that the same had been done without the 
knowledge ?fthe Revenue Department of the State. No records therefor were 
G 
available with the State. An inquiry had been made wherein the then 
Commissioner of Revenue stated that no such appointment had been made to 
his knowledge. The State proceeded on the said basis. The offers of appointment 
""' 
were cancelled not on the ground that some irregularities had been committed 
in the process of recruitment hut on the ground that they had been non-est in 
the eye of law. The purported appointment letters were fake

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