2007 (2) TMI 693 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment for the Posts of field staffs - Commissioner allegedly made certain appointments, without the knowledge of the State - offers of appointment issued in favour of the Respondents were cancelled - Principles of Natural Justice - violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - The State while offering appointments, having regard to the constitutional scheme adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, must comply with its constitutional duty, subject to just and proper exceptions, to give an opportunity of being considered for appointment to all persons eligible therefor. The posts of field staffs of the Revenue Department of the State of Manipur were, thus, required to be filled up having regard to the said constitutional scheme. We would proceed on the assumption that the State had not framed any recruitment rules in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India but the same by itself would not clothe the Commissioner of Revenue to make recruitments in violation of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Commissioner furthermore was not the appointing authority. He was only a cadre controlling authority. He was merely put a Chairman of the DPC for non-ministerial post of the Revenue Department. The term DPC would ordinarily mean the Departmental Promotion Committee. The respondents had not been validly appointed and in that view of the matter, the question of their case being considered for promotion and/ or recruitment by the DPC did not and could not arise. Even assuming that DPC would mean Selection Committee, there is noting on record to show who were its members and how and at whose instance it was constituted. The Commissioner, as noticed hereinbefore, was the Chairman of the DPC. How the matter was referred to the DPC has not been disclosed. Even the affidavit affirmed by Shri Tayeng before the High Court in this behalf is silent. The appointing authority, in absence of any delegation of power having been made in that behalf, was the State Government. The Government Order dated 12.01.1998 did not delegate the power of appointment to the Commissioner. He, therefore, was wholly incompetent to issue the appointment letters. The respondents, therefore, in our opinion, were not entitled to hold the posts. In a case of this nature, where the facts are admitted, the principles of natural justice were not required to be complied with, particularly when the same would result in futility. It is true that where appointments had been made by a competent authority or at least some steps have been taken in that behalf, the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. We, as noticed hereinbefore, do not know as to under what circumstances the orders of appointments were issued. We in the facts and circumstances of this case do not see any arbitrariness on the part of the State in its action directing cancellation of appointments. Thus, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appointments made by the Revenue Commissioner.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Authority and power of the Commissioner of Revenue to make appointments.
4. Legality of the cancellation of appointments.
5. Entitlement of the respondents to hold the posts and receive salaries.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Appointments Made by the Revenue Commissioner:
The State of Manipur questioned the validity of appointments made by the Revenue Commissioner, Shri A.J. Tayeng, to posts such as Mandols, Process-Servers, and Zilladars. These appointments were made without the knowledge of the State and were not recorded officially. The Commissioner initially denied making such appointments but later affirmed in an affidavit that the appointment orders bore his signature. The Supreme Court noted that the appointments were made without following the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16, which require a fair and transparent recruitment process.

2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The High Court had quashed the cancellation orders on the grounds of non-compliance with principles of natural justice. However, the Supreme Court held that in cases where appointments are found to be forged or non-est in law, compliance with principles of natural justice is not necessary, especially when it would result in futility. The Court cited precedents such as Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ajay Kumar Das and Ors., which stated that if appointments are nullities, the question of observing natural justice does not arise.

3. Authority and Power of the Commissioner of Revenue to Make Appointments:
The Commissioner of Revenue was not the appointing authority but merely a cadre controlling authority and Chairman of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for non-ministerial posts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Commissioner did not have the delegated power to make appointments, and any such appointments made were beyond his authority. The Court highlighted that the appointments were made without proper advertisement or notification to the employment exchange, thus violating the constitutional scheme.

4. Legality of the Cancellation of Appointments:
The Supreme Court upheld the State's action of canceling the appointments, stating that the offers of appointment were forged and not issued by a competent authority. The action of the State was deemed bona fide and not arbitrary. The Court reiterated that any action taken in violation of constitutional and legal frameworks is not binding on the State.

5. Entitlement of the Respondents to Hold the Posts and Receive Salaries:
The respondents failed to establish a legal right to hold the posts or receive salaries. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents could not prove that their appointments were made following the constitutional mandate. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the respondents to show the legality of their appointments, which they failed to do. Consequently, the respondents were not entitled to hold the posts or receive salaries from the State exchequer.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, holding that the appointments were invalid, non-est in law, and made without proper authority. The appeals were allowed, and the cancellation of the appointments was upheld. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and the necessity of a transparent recruitment process.