1996 (12) TMI 426 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:

• Whether the appointments of Class III and Class IV employees under the Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme as part of the 20-Point Programme were legal and valid.
• Whether the confirmation of these employees was legally justified.
• Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the termination of these employees.
• What relief, if any, could be granted to the appellants.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Legality of Appointments

The Court examined the legality of the appointments made by Dr. Mallick, who recruited 6000 employees against 2250 sanctioned posts under the Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme. The relevant legal framework included the Government Orders dated 3rd December 1980, which outlined the procedure for recruiting Class III and Class IV employees. The Court found that Dr. Mallick violated these procedures, acting arbitrarily and without regard to established norms, thereby rendering the appointments illegal and void.

Issue 2: Confirmation of Employees

The Court considered whether the subsequent confirmation of these employees could legitimize their appointments. It was determined that confirmation could not rectify the initial illegality, as the appointments were made against non-existent vacancies and were unauthorized. The Court emphasized that regularization requires an initial valid appointment, which was absent in this case.

Issue 3: Principles of Natural Justice

The appellants argued that the termination violated natural justice principles. The Court held that given the scale of the issue and the public interest involved, the procedures followed by the State, including public notices and opportunities for personal hearings, were adequate. Therefore, there was no violation of natural justice.

Issue 4: Relief for Appellants

While the Court acknowledged the appellants' predicament, it concluded that the illegal nature of their appointments precluded reinstatement. However, the Court provided directions for the State to consider these individuals in future recruitments, giving them weightage for their past service and training under the program.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court's significant holdings included:

• The initial appointments by Dr. Mallick were illegal, as they were made without regard to sanctioned posts and established procedures.
• Confirmation of these appointments could not legitimize the initial illegality.
• The principles of natural justice were not violated in the termination process.
• The Court directed the State to consider the appellants in future recruitments, providing weightage for their past service and training.

Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

"The appointments of 6000 employees as made by Dr. Mallick in the Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme were ex facie illegal. As they were contrary to all recognised recruitment procedures and were highly arbitrary, they were not binding on the State of Bihar."

"The so-called exercise of confirming these employees therefore, remained a nullity... It would amount to decorating a still-born body."

The Court established core principles that unauthorized appointments, even if confirmed, cannot be legitimized, and that large-scale public interest issues may warrant a flexible approach to natural justice principles.

Final determinations on each issue were that the appointments were illegal, confirmations were void, natural justice was not violated, and the appellants were to be considered in future recruitments with specific directions for the State to follow.