9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 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. - S. B. Sinha And Markandey Katju, JJ. JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Five vacancies of Foresters were notified on or about 22.11.1978 to the District Employment Exchange, Nellore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Appellant No. 1 to allow all service benefits to him as a Forester with effect from the date of his selection. Indisputably, during pendency of O.A. No. 5409 of 1994, a notice to show cause was issued as a why his name should not be removed from the post of Forester. The Tribunal, in terms of its order dated 5.05.1999, dismissed the said original application directing the respondent herein to submit his explanation to the said show cause notice. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, he filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and by reason of the impugned judgment dated 25.4.2005, the said writ petition has been allowed directing: 9. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and also the report of the 3rd respondent - District Employment Officer, Nellore dated 24.8.1993 and consequently the show cause notice termination. Petitioner shall be continued in service, as if he has been in regular appointment from 23.4.1982 and he shall be given benefit of pay as revised from time to time and he shall also be given notional increments up to the date of filing the present writ petition i.e. 19.7.1999 and thereafter fiscal monetary benefits shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate authority. It is not a case where the notice was issued wholly without jurisdiction. It is also not a case where the said notice was otherwise illegal. 10. Respondent claims his right to continue in service only because he was selected. A selected candidate, it is now well settled, has no legal right to be appointed automatically. 11. The High Court in passing the impugned judgment, with respect, did not pose unto itself a right question. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said show cause notice, the respondent was required to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated. The observations of the High Court, therefore, to the effect that he having been appointed on 23.4.1982 on the minimum scale of pay, cannot be permitted to continue to draw the same scale of pay as applicable in 1978 without any revisional increments, was wholly irrelevant. 12. 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. [See M/s. Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 13 SCALE 297 The Tribunal, as noticed hereinb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Anr., AIR (1987) SC 943 : [1987] 2 SCC 179, this Court held: 9. The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued probably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice. 15. This Court in Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr., [2004] 3 SCC 440 stated the law, thus: 5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our opinion, the case of the respondent herein does not come any one of those exceptions and even on facts it is not such a case which calls for the issuance of an interim mandatory injunction directing the possession being handed over to the respondent. As observed by the learned Single Judge the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession is yet to be decided in the trial court and granting of any interim order directing handing over of possession would only mean decreeing the suit even before trial. Once the possession of the appellant either directly or through his agent (caretaker) is admitted then the fact that the appellant is not using the said property for commercial purpose or not using the same for any beneficial purpose or the appellant has to pay huge amount by way of damages in the event of the losing the case or the fact that the litigation between the parties is a luxury litigation are all facts which are irrelevant for changing the status quo in regard to possession during the pendency of the suit. [See also Srikrishna and Ors. v. Aniruddha Singh and Ors., [2005] 12 SCC 389]. 19. In any event, the writ petition having been dismissed, the interim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
