2007 (4) TMI 711 - SC - Indian Laws

Right to continue in service - Guilty of Misconduct - name removed from the post of Forester - Notified vacancies of Foresters - name of the respondent got registered with the Employment Exchange only in the year 1976 - interim order passed to consider his case for appointment - Respondent was selected having been placed in Sl. No. 3 in the merit list - HELD THAT - A selected candidate, it is now well settled, has no legal right to be appointed automatically. It is also not a case where an order has been passed without application of mind. It is also not a case where the appellant had made up its mind and the notice had been issued only by way of a formality. M/s. Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (12) TMI 203 - SUPREME COURT . The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, directed the respondent to show his cause. Ordinarily, no writ petition would be maintainable at that stage. Two other aspects of the matter cannot also be lost sight of. Respondent was not appointed pursuant to selection made in his favour. No offer of appointment was issued by the appellant. He was appointed pursuant to an interim order passed by High Court. The High Court ordinarily should not have done so. In any event, the writ petition having been dismissed, the interim order also came to an end. It could have been directed to be continued. Respondent did not, thus, have any legal right to continue in service after dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court. It is furthermore doubtful as to whether an original application could have been filed questioning the report of the District Employment Officer. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. Respondent may file his show cause within two weeks from date whereupon the appellants may take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. The Appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the respondent's inclusion in the list of candidates for the Forester position.
2. Validity and jurisdiction of the show cause notice issued to the respondent.
3. High Court's decision to allow the respondent to continue in service and receive benefits.
4. Maintainability of the original application against the show cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Respondent's Inclusion in the List of Candidates for the Forester Position:
The judgment outlines that five vacancies for Foresters were notified to the District Employment Exchange, Nellore, on 22.11.1978. Initially, candidates registered up to 11.02.1970 were considered, and a list of 18 candidates, including the respondent, was sent to the employer on 9.01.1979. However, the respondent had registered only in 1976, and his inclusion was allegedly due to connivance with a Junior Assistant at the Employment Exchange. The District Employment Officer reported the respondent's misconduct, leading to a proposal to delete his name from the list.

2. Validity and Jurisdiction of the Show Cause Notice Issued to the Respondent:
The respondent's selection was questioned due to the alleged fraud, and a show cause notice was issued. The Supreme Court noted that the issuance of the show cause notice was within jurisdiction and not illegal. The purpose was to provide the respondent an opportunity to explain why his services should not be terminated. The Court emphasized that a selected candidate does not have an automatic legal right to appointment.

3. High Court's Decision to Allow the Respondent to Continue in Service and Receive Benefits:
The High Court had set aside the Tribunal's order and the District Employment Officer's report, directing that the respondent be continued in service with back pay and benefits. The Supreme Court found this approach incorrect, stating that the High Court did not pose the right question and that the observations regarding pay scale were irrelevant. The Court cited precedents to assert that the High Court should not have interfered with the show cause notice at that stage.

4. Maintainability of the Original Application Against the Show Cause Notice:
The Supreme Court highlighted that ordinarily, an original application against a show cause notice is not maintainable. The Court referenced previous judgments to support this view, stating that the respondent should have responded to the show cause notice and allowed the appropriate authority to make a decision. The Court also noted that the respondent's appointment was pursuant to an interim order, which should not have been granted by the High Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the respondent to file a show cause within two weeks, after which the appellants could take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.