UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 13-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
v.
RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 1636 of 2012)
MARCH 13, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment – Without approval of competent authority –
Termination of service – Without affording  opportunity of hearing –
Propriety of – Held: Prior approval of competent authority for
appointment was mandatory as per service rules and executive
instructions – Therefore, appointment without prior approval of
competent authority, suffers from the vice of lack of authority and
nullify in law – The appointment being a nullity there was no question
of observance of principles of natural justice before termination of
such appointment – Central Cattle Breeding Forum (Class III and
IV Post) Recruitment Rules, 1969- Principle of Natural Justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The recruitment procedure in relation to the post
of Veterinary Compounder is governed by the statutory rules
titled ‘Central Cattle Breeding Farms (Class III and Class IV
posts) Recruitment Rules, 1969, as amended from time to time
and including the executive instructions issued in that behalf.
As per the stated dispensation for such recruitment, the
appointment letter could be issued only by an authorised officer
and after grant of approval by the competent authority.  Even if it
is assumed that the then Director Incharge had the authority to
issue a letter of appointment.  Nevertheless, he could do so only
upon obtaining prior written approval of the of the competent
authority. No case has been made out in the Original Application
that due approval was granted by the competent authority before
issue of the letter of appointment to the respondent. [Paras 16-
17]  [1025-G-H; 1026-C-D]
[2018] 4  S.C.R. 1012
1012
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1013
2. In absence of prior approval of the competent authority,
the Director Incharge could not have hastened issuance of the
appointment letter.  The act of commission and omission of the
then Director Incharge would, therefore, suffer from the vice of
lack of authority and nullity in law. [Para 17]  [1026-E]
3. The subject office order dated 29.08.2000 opens with
the statement that the same was issued in compliance with the
Ministry’s decision vide letter No.8-6/1999-ADMN.III dt.
18.08.2000. By reference to the said communication-cum-decision
of the Ministry, it stood incorporated in the subject office order.
Besides, the subject office order explicitly states that the
appointment of the respondent was illegally made by the then
Director Incharge. This reason of illegal appointment takes within
its fold the unilateral constitution of the Selection Board (not in
accordance with the prescribed constitution of the selection
Board) and also the Director Incharge nominating himself as the
Chairman of such Board, although disqualified to be on the Board
because the candidate was related to him.  As a result, the
Ministry took holistic decision, after reckoning all aspects of the
matter including that it was not just a solitary appointment of the
respondent, but also other appointment letters issued by him
under his signature.  All such appointments made by him came
under the scanner as being fraudulent and without authority.  Such
appointments would obviously be a nullity in law. [Para 18]  [1026-
F-H; 1027-A-B]
4. If the appointment letters are nullity, having been issued
by an officer who did not wield authority to do so, there was no
question of observance of principles of natural justice even though
the affected party was not before the Court.  The mere fact that
such letter of appointment had been issued in favour of the
respondent does not bestow any right in his favour much less to
insist for an opportunity of being heard.  In the fact situation of
the present case, giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent
before issuance of the subject office order was not an essential
requirement and it would be an exercise in futility. [Paras 19, 22
and 27] [1027-C-D; 1030-A; 1031-G]
5. The High Court has not analysed the efficacy of the
crucial reason recorded in the subject office order in its correct
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
perspective. The observation of the High Court  that prior
approval of the competent authority was not mandatory, is
manifestly wrong. The appointment of respondent was not in
conformity wit

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