THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus KIRTI NARAYAN PRASAD

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 30-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
403
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
v.
KIRTI NARAYAN PRASAD
(Civil Appeal No. 8649 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 30, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointments – Legality of – Writ petitioners
before High Court had joined the service of State of Bihar under
the orders made by the concerned Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical
Officer of the district – It was alleged that none of the writ petitioners
was appointed through a proper legal recruitment process – The
State Government having found that large number of appointments
were made on the basis of false or forged documents, without
following due process of recruitment and mostly without the
appointment orders, cancelled such appointments and the concerned
incumbents were discharged from service – Writ petitions before the
High Court with specific prayer to regularize service and to set
aside the order of termination of services – Allowed by the High
Court – On appeal, held: The writ petitioners were the beneficiaries
of illegal orders made by the Civil-cum-Chief Medical Officer –
They were given notice to establish the genuineness of their
appointment and to show cause – None of them were able to establish
the genuineness or legality of their appointment before the State
Committee – The State Committee on appreciation of the materials
on record had opined that their appointment was illegal and void
ab initio – There were no grounds to disagree with the said finding
of the State Committee – In the circumstances, the question of
regularisation of their services did not arise, since the appointment
of the petitioners was ab initio void, they were not the civil servants
of the State.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD:  In the instant cases, the writ petitioners have filed
the petitions before the High Court with a specific prayer to
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 403
403
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
404                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
regularize their service and to set aside the order of termination
of their services.  They have also challenged the report submitted
by the State Committee.  The real controversy is whether the
writ petitioners were legally and validly appointed.  The finding
of the State Committee is that many writ petitioners had secured
appointment by producing fake or forged appointment letter or
had been inducted in Government service surreptitiously by
concerned Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer by issuing a
posting order.  The writ petitioners are the beneficiaries of illegal
orders made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer.
They were given notice to establish the genuineness of their
appointment and to show cause.  None of them could establish
the genuineness or legality of their appointment before the State
Committee.  The State Committee on appreciation of the materials
on record has opined that their appointment was illegal and void
ab initio.  There is no ground to disagree with the finding of the
State Committee.  In the circumstances, the question of
regularisation of their services by invoking of the judgment in
Umadevi  does not arise.  Since the appointment of the petitioners
is ab initio void, they cannot be said to be the civil servants of the
State.  Therefore, holding disciplinary proceedings envisaged by
Article 311 of the Constitution or under any other disciplinary
rules shall not arise. [Para 17][413-E-H; 414-A]
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi
(3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 ;
State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3
SCC 436 : [2011] 2 SCR 704 – relied on.
State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others
(2010) 9 SCC 24 ; State of Bihar v. Purendra Sulan Kit
2006 (3) PLJR 386 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 SCR 953
relied on
Para 1
(2010) 9 SCC 24
referred to
Para 1
[2011] 2 SCR 704
relied on
Para 6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
405
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8649
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2011 of the High Court
of  Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 1523 of 2010.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 8697, 8698, 8699, 8700, 8701, 8702, 8703, 8704,
8705, 8650, 8651, 8652, 8654, 8706, 8655, 8668, 8707, 8670, 8673,
8674-8676, 8677, 8678, 8661, 8656, 8657, 8658, 8659, 8660, 8683, 8684,
8662, 8663, 8665, 8666, 8687, 8688, 8689, 8690, 8691, 8692, 8693, 8696,
10049-10050 of 2018.
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Ms. Aprajita
Sud, Kumar Milind, Rajiv Kumar, D. P. Mohanty,

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