Appointments made through back doors are not valid ones: SC

    Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.  V/s  RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH having a three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra with justices. A.M. Khanwilkar  and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal .

    The case was that the respondent was appointed to the post of Veterinary Compounder in the Department of Animal Husbandry  and Dairying by the then Agriculture Officer, Central Cattle Breeding Farms (CCBF), Suratgarh, who was purportedly authorised only to look after the current duties of the post of Director. The appointment was made on a provisional and temporary basis, pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspaper. However, by an office order issued under the signature of the Director, the services of respondent came to be terminated.

    The respondent assailed the said order by filing Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench at Jodhpur. The Tribunal, after analysing the relevant contentions of both sides, opined that there was no infirmity in the termination order passed against the concerned applicant including the respondent herein. Relying upon the judgement in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran, State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association & Ors. and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Das & Ors dismissed the application.  They observed that people appointed by back door are not considered as the valid appointments.

    The respondent challenged this decision by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur where the decision of the tribunal was reversed relying upon the judgements in the cases of D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. and Bhupal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. They observed that the termination order could be passed only after giving opportunity to the respondent and not otherwise.

    The appellant challenged this decision in the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court was set aside and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal was restored, dismissing the Original Application filed by the respondent. The appeal succeeds subjected to some terms with no order as to costs.

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here