High Court · 2025

HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE AI]I{INAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY , WRITPETI'TI ON No.17279 of'2024 ORDER: @er flon'hle Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

08.04.2024 passed by the Cenrra[ Adrninisrrative Tribu Hyderabad Bench (for shorrthe l'ribunal,) in OA.No. 1415 of 20t5

2. Heard Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akhileshwar, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing lor respondents.

3. The facts ol' the case, in nutshell, are that the respondents have issued a ootification dated 30.11.2011 calling fbr applications to the post of Lowcr Division Clerks (LDC) for a period of one year, which is extendable on yearly basis upon satisfactory performance of the candidates; that the petitioner has applied for the said post and after undergoing the selection process, she was appointed as LDC on 03.04.20 l2 on contract basis for a period of 2 ,IK,',J & LNA,J WP Na 17279 oI2024 \ one vear an(l shc.loired dut1, o. 09.04.20111 and that the services of the petitiorcr' \vere extended liom tinie to time bv the respondents r i ll thc y,caL 20 I 5. 4. Subse<1rcntlr. rhe petiriorrcr. was appointed as t,DC in regular cadlc lry the respondents vide proceedings dated

02.0).2015 against rhe vacancy earmarked for SC candidate, as she belorrged lo S( .llte !or..\. 5. Upon inquilv. r.espondenr \o.l dir.ected respondent l{o.2 to canct:l the app() irlt ltre, t\ rnade to tl-re posts of LDC with imnrediate effcc: and rcsponclcnr No.2 viclc procecdings dated 06.1i1.2015 cancelled thc app.irturenl 0rder dated 02.03.2015 0fthe petitioner on the ground that there were irregularities in her appointnrent to the said post, lto\^,c\/er., the respor-rdents allowed the petitioner, if willing, [o conr inrre in rhe post of. I_DC on temporary basir; with consolidated pav rill the r.egular process to fill up the vacant posts of I-DC is cornplcrccl and thc petitioner subrnined the joining repoft on 07.l0 l0 Li. 6. Aggrieved b_v Lhe order of cancellation, dated 06.10.20 t5, to the regular posr ol' I-r)c. the peritioner has filed oA.No.l4l5 of 2015 before tlrc 'r .ibLrrar and rhc -t-r.ibunar dismissed the said 1 3 AKS,J & LN,4,J trP No.17279 of2024 application vide order dated 0g.04.2024, on the ground that selection to the regular post of LDC was not made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and approvals. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is exfacie illegal as the Tribunal ought to have considered that there was no information given to the petitioner with regard to the inquiry being conducted and the same was conducted behind the back. Leamed counsel also contended that the petitioner has continued in the regular service of LDC for a period of seven months, and the order of cancellation is not in accordance with the law governing the termination of regular employees. He further contended that principles of natural justice are violatedsince no notice had been issued to the petitioner and she was not afforded an opportunity ofhearing before passing the cancellation order dated 06.10.2015 and the law is well_settled that if any adverse orders are passed without giving notice or an opportunity of being heard, the same is illegal and unsustainable 4 AKS,J & LNA,J WP No.t7279 oj 2021 and accordingly,, he prayed this Court to set aside the canceliation

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the canc)ellation orders issued by the respondents do not disclcse any fraud or misconduct on the par.t of the petitioner while being appointed nor raised any question as regards the ineligibility of the petitioner to the regular post of LDC

9. Leamed counsel for the petitioner furlher contended that as on r\pril, 2022, the petitioner has completed ten (10) years of seruice with the respondents and hence, she is entitled to absorption into regular serwice in view of the continuous sen ice. He fr.rrther contended that the petitioner belongs to SC category and.hence, she is entitled to be absorbed into regular services under the said category with all consequential benefits.

10. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondents submits that the l'ribunal has rightly dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner on the ground that process of selection to the regular post of LDC was not rlade in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. He further submitted that after regularization was made, complaints were received by respondent No. I regarding regularization of services &&*, 7 / /1 5 AKS,J A LN,I,J l't'P No.17279 o12021 of four persons to the post of LDC, which includes the case of the petitioner, and hence, an inquiry was ordered by respondent No.1 and in the inquiry, it was found that regierization was made against the rules, and no prior permission for such regularization was obtained from the ICMR headquarters and as such, the initial appointment of the petitioner itself is in clear violation of due procedure contemplated.

11. Leamed counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the inquiry, it was also found that no selection committee was formed, no written test/interview/typing test was conducted and the appointments were made only through writing some notes on f,rle' Based on the said inquiry report, an Office Memorandum was issued cancelling the appointments issued to four LDCs, which includes that of the petitioner, and an option was given to the petitioner to coi'rtinue in the post on contract basis till completion of regular process to fill up the vacant posts of LDCs.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the cancellation order was passed solely basing on the inquiry, wherein violation of Rules regarding selection and appointment of the petitioner, including three others, was made by the Department 6 AKS J & LNA,J WP t\to.17279 of2024 officials and as such, the question of issuance of notice and an opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner does rrot arise. Learned counsel further contended that the services of the petitioner were regularized without obtaining permission from respondent No.1, who is the competent authority, and hence, the question of issuing notice does not arise. It is further contended that no guidelines were issued by the respondents for absorption into regular service after a temporary employee completes ten years of service and finally, he submitted that the present Writ Petition, being devoid of any merits, is liable to be dismissed. CoNslorRl TION: 13. From the above factual matrix of the case and the rnaterial placed on record, it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner, along with three others, was questioned by one_ K'Mallesh by f,rling oA.No.442 of 2015 before the Tr.ibunal, projecting various infirmities in the selection process and that in obedience of tite order of the Tribunal to inquire into the process of selection, respondent No. 1 constituted a committee comprising of two rnembers to inquire into the said aspect and on enquiry, the said committee submitted report dated 11.09.2015 holding thar v/ ,,/ - ., 7 NKS,J & LNA,J WP No 17279 of2021 there are various irregularities in the appointment of the petitioner, including violation of the Recruitment Rules; that no prior permission for such appointment was obtained fiom the ICMR Headquarters, which is clear violation of the procedure; and that no selection committee was formed, no written test/interview/typing test was conducted, and the appointments were made only through writing some notes on file.

14. Taking into consideration the findings in the inquiry report, an Office Memorandum dated28.9.2015/01.10.2015 was issued by respondent No. 1 cancelling the appointment orders issued to four LDCs, which includes the petitioner, with immediate effect. Hence, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the question of violation of the principles of natural justice and no notice being issued does not arise as the appointment for'the regular post was in violation of the procedure contemplated under the Recruitment Rules,20[3.

15. It is evident from the cancellation order dated 06.10.2015, and the office memorandum dated 28.09.2015101.10.2015 that the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner for the regular post of LDC was solely due to the irregularity and violation of the 8 4KS,J & LNA,J WP No 172i9 of2024 Recruitment Rules by the respondents and the conduct of the petitioner was not in question.

16. It is also evident from the inquiry l.eport that the practice employed and procedure for the said appointment to thc regular posts were made following an irregular procedure, and though there was no shortage of LDCs, the petitioner, along with three othors, was given unnecessary age relaxation whili: being appointed. It is also pertinent to note that after issulnce of canr:ellation order dated 06.10.2015, the petitioner has voluntarily joined the service on temporary basis, therefore, the question of threat or lbrce does not arise. Hence, as rightly observed by. the Tribunal, if a procedure is adopted for selection that has been in practice previously, it is necessary to follow the said prar;tice by taking necessary permission and all the requisite approvals from the r:ompetdnt authorities before initiating the process of selection. Thelefore, the appointments made without prior approval of the competent authority or against the statutory rules have no .ralidity and amounts to nullity and hence, there is no necessify to follow the principles of natural justice when the appointments are made by way of iregular procedure. 7 9 AKS,J & LNA.J wP No t7279 of2024

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Dr.(Miss) Binapani Deit , wherein it is held that administrative orders that involve civil consequences have to be passed consistently following the principles of natural justice. The said principle was also followed in Mahipal Singh Tomar v. Stale of (1.P.

18. The principle laid down in the said cases is not applicable to the present case because in the said cases, the authorities who inade the appointments were competent and have obtained the requisite permissions to make the appointments, but, there were irregularities in the process of selection. However, in the instant case, as per the inquiry report, various irregularities were found in the selection process of LDCs and it was found that no prior permission or requisite approvals were obtained by the authority for making such appointments.

19. ln Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh,s wherein a person was appointed to the post of veterinary compounder by an incompetent authority, that too, without obtaining the required ORDER WP.No.17279 of 2024 .-.\ S

7. t l{ lti,l i,125 OpSPAT.!\' ., ( ),.: 'u DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @4;s X*,