Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Junior Accounts Clerk: Rana Pratap Singh vs. Vittiye Evam Lekha Adhikari (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2019
Citation: (2019) Civil Appeal No. 9220 of 2019
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can an employee’s appointment be invalidated due to a technicality, even after years of service and promotions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of a Junior Accounts Clerk. The core issue revolved around whether the appointment of the appellant was valid and whether subsequent court orders affected his right to continue on the post. This judgment clarifies the importance of procedural fairness and the impact of interim orders on service matters. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the appointment of Rana Pratap Singh as a Junior Accounts Clerk in the office of the District Basic Education Officer. Initially, Shiv Kumar Rai held this position, but he was promoted to Assistant Accountant, creating a vacancy. The District Basic Education Officer called for names from the Employment Exchange, which forwarded a list including Rana Pratap Singh. A Selection Committee was formed as per the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985. After an initial selection process was cancelled, a fresh process was initiated. An advertisement was published in the Daily News Paper “Dainik Devvrat” on 05.12.1990, and the Employment Exchange was requested to intimate the candidates for an interview on 20.12.1990. Rana Pratap Singh was selected and appointed on 21.12.1990, joining on 22.12.1990. However, Shiv Kumar Rai’s promotion was cancelled on 11.11.1992, leading to the termination of Rana Pratap Singh’s appointment on the same day. This termination was challenged in court, and the legal battle ensued.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The legal proceedings began when Shiv Kumar Rai’s promotion was cancelled, and Rana Pratap Singh’s services were terminated on 11.11.1992. Shiv Kumar Rai filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his promotion and obtained a stay order on 27.11.1992. Rana Pratap Singh also filed a writ petition against his termination, which was dismissed on 04.12.1992, as the court was not informed about the stay order in favour of Shiv Kumar Rai. Subsequently, Rana Pratap Singh was re-appointed on 01.01.1993, but this was limited till 27.02.1993. He then filed another writ petition challenging the order dated 27.02.1993, which was stayed by the High Court on 29.04.1993. Shiv Kumar Rai’s writ petition was eventually dismissed as infructuous on 15.09.2001. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed Rana Pratap Singh’s writ petition on 02.02.2012, stating his appointment was not made following the due procedure of law. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed his special appeal on 06.02.2018, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985. Rule 22 of the 1985 Rules, titled “Notification of Vacancies to the Employment Exchange,” specifies the procedure for filling vacancies. It states:

“The appointing Authority shall determine the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of the year as also the vacancies to reserved under Rule 7. The vacancies shall be notified to the Employment Exchange. The Appointing Authority may also invite application directly from the person who have their names registered in the Employment Exchange. For this purpose, the Appointing Authority shall issue an advertisement in a local daily news paper besides pasting a notice for the same on the Notice Board. All such application shall be placed before the Selection Committee.”

This rule mandates that vacancies be notified to the Employment Exchange and allows for direct applications from those registered with the exchange, provided an advertisement is published in a local newspaper. The case also touches upon the principles of natural justice and the effect of interim orders on the rights of parties.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that his appointment was made by a duly constituted Selection Committee as per the 1985 Rules, after names were called from the Employment Exchange, which included his name.
• He contended that the observation of the Single Judge that his appointment was made without following the procedure known to law was incorrect.
• The appellant submitted that the dismissal of his first writ petition on 04.12.1992 should not prejudice his claim, as the main order regarding Shiv Kumar Rai had been stayed.
• He argued that the order dated 01.01.1993 was not a re-appointment but a reinstatement based on his earlier appointment of 21.12.1990.
• The appellant highlighted that the writ petition filed by Shiv Kumar Rai was dismissed as infructuous, and Shiv Kumar Rai never returned to his original post, thus his continuance should not be affected.
• He emphasized that he had been in service for 27 years, received promotional pay scales, and was confirmed on his post.
• The appellant also relied on reports submitted by authorities stating that his appointment was made following the due procedure of law.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the appellant’s appointment was not made following the procedure prescribed by law.
• They claimed that no advertisement was issued in the Daily News Paper “Dainik Devvrat” on 05.12.1990, as claimed by the appellant.
• The respondents contended that since the writ petition was dismissed on 02.02.2012, and there was no interim order in the special appeal, the appellant’s continuation and receipt of salary after 02.02.2012 was not explained.
• They submitted that the appellant concealed the dismissal of his writ petition from the department.
• The respondents argued that there were several complaints against the appellant, leading to enquiries and actions against him.

Submissions of Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appointment of the appellant on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk on 21.12.1990 was not validly made in accordance with law?
2. Whether by dismissal of Writ Petition No.Nil of 1992 on 04.12.1992 filed against the consequential order dated 11.11.1992 issued to the petitioner, the appellant’s right to continue on his post shall come to an end?
3. Whether the re-appointment of the appellant dated 01.01.1993 was limited only till 27.02.1993, and after the efflux of the said period, the appellant’s right to continue on the post shall come to an end?
4. Whether by dismissal of W.P.No.44384 of 1992 – Shiv Kumar Rai versus Director Basic Education and others on 15.09.2001 shall result in terminating the vacancy on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk on which the appellant was appointed and was working?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• The Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985: The court examined Rules 22 and 23 of the 1985 Rules, which provide the procedure for notification of vacancies and the selection process. Rule 22 specifically outlines the requirement to notify the Employment Exchange and the option to invite direct applications through advertisement in a local newspaper.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985: The court relied on these rules to conclude that the appointment was made following the due procedure, as the names were called from the Employment Exchange and a Selection Committee was constituted.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following points:

• Procedural Fairness: The court emphasized that the appellant’s appointment was made by a duly constituted Selection Committee following the statutory rules. The court noted that the names were called from the Employment Exchange, and the appellant’s name was included in the list. The court also noted that no proceedings were initiated by any candidate or the appointing authority questioning the appointment.
• Impact of Interim Orders: The court took a strong view of the fact that the dismissal of the appellant’s first writ petition was due to the non-disclosure of the stay order in favour of Shiv Kumar Rai. The court noted that the consequential order issued to the appellant became inoperative due to the stay order.
• Substance over Form: The court looked beyond the technicalities of the re-appointment order dated 01.01.1993 and held that it was essentially a reinstatement. The court noted that the mention of 27.02.1993 was because of the limited period of the interim order.
• Practical Realities: The court took note of the fact that Shiv Kumar Rai never returned to his original post and continued on his promotional post till his retirement. The court noted that the dismissal of Shiv Kumar Rai’s writ petition was infructuous.
• Length of Service: The court considered the fact that the appellant had been in service for 27 years and had received promotions and confirmation on his post. The court also noted that the Department had continued the appellant and had granted him promotion and confirmation.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Validity of Appointment

Issue 2: Effect of Dismissal of Writ Petition (04.12.1992)

Issue 3: Validity of Re-appointment (01.01.1993)

Issue 4: Effect of Dismissal of Shiv Kumar Rai’s Writ Petition (15.09.2001)

Key Takeaways

• Valid Appointments: Appointments made by a duly constituted Selection Committee following statutory rules are generally valid, even if there are minor procedural irregularities.
• Effect of Interim Orders: Interim orders have a significant impact on the rights of parties, and consequential orders become inoperative when the main order is stayed.
• Substance over Form: Courts will look beyond technicalities and consider the substance of orders, especially in service matters.
• Length of Service: Courts will consider the length of service and the conduct of the parties while deciding service-related matters.
• Infructuous Dismissals: Dismissal of a writ petition as infructuous does not automatically terminate the rights of other parties, especially when the main issues are not adjudicated on merits.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was allowed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appointment made by a duly constituted Selection Committee following statutory rules is valid, and the dismissal of a writ petition due to a technicality or as infructuous does not automatically terminate the rights of other parties. The court also emphasized the importance of considering the substance of orders and the practical realities of the case. This case reinforces the principle that technicalities should not override the substantive rights of individuals, especially in service matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rana Pratap Singh vs. Vittiye Evam Lekha Adhikari upholds the appointment of the appellant, emphasizing that procedural fairness and the substance of orders should prevail over technicalities. The court’s decision underscores the importance of considering the practical realities and the length of service in service-related matters. The court held that the appointment of the appellant was valid, and the subsequent orders did not affect his right to continue on the post. This judgment provides clarity on the impact of interim orders and the effect of dismissal of writ petitions on service matters.