9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Termination of service without hearing violating natural justice. 2. Necessity of government approval for appointments. 3. Validity of temporary appointments and termination without notice. 4. Consideration of government instructions in appointments. Analysis: Issue 1: Termination of service without hearing violating natural justice The High Court quashed the termination order of the respondents based on two main grounds. Firstly, it held that the termination violated natural justice principles as the respondents were not given an opportunity to be heard before the termination. The High Court deemed this violation as contrary to law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that the High Court erred in its decision. Issue 2: Necessity of government approval for appointments The appellant argued that government approval was necessary for the appointments, citing a project proposal disapproved by the government in April 1989. The High Court did not consider this government directive while quashing the termination order. The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of government instructions in such matters, emphasizing the need for compliance with directives to prevent economic loss to the corporation. Issue 3: Validity of temporary appointments and termination without notice The appointments of the respondents were made on a purely temporary basis, as evident from the appointment orders. The terms clearly stated that the services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice or reason. The Supreme Court highlighted that temporary employees do not acquire substantive rights to the post, and their services can be terminated without formalities like those under Article 311 of the Constitution. As the respondents were never declared permanent and their appointments were temporary, the termination without notice was deemed valid. Issue 4: Consideration of government instructions in appointments The actions of the then Managing Director, who made the appointments against government directives, were deemed hasty and in disregard of State Government instructions. The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of adhering to government orders to prevent adverse consequences for the corporation. The High Court's failure to consider these instructions while quashing the termination order was considered a misstep. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the writ petition without costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of following government directives in appointments and upheld the validity of terminating temporary employees without notice in compliance with their appointment terms.
|
