Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Illegal Appointment: Union of India vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 208
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Can an appointment to a government post be terminated without a hearing if it was made without the necessary approval? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the appointment of a Veterinary Compounder. The core issue was whether such an appointment is a nullity, thus not requiring a hearing before termination, or a mere irregularity, requiring a hearing. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, with the opinion authored by Justice Khanwilkar.

Case Background

The respondent, Raghuwar Pal Singh, was appointed as a Veterinary Compounder in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying in November 1999. This appointment was made by H.S. Rathore, who was then the Agriculture Officer and in charge of the Director’s duties at the Central Cattle Breeding Farm (CCBF), Suratgarh. The appointment was provisional and temporary, following a newspaper advertisement on October 15, 1999.

However, on August 29, 2000, the respondent’s services were terminated by an office order issued by Dr. M.N. Haque, the Director. The termination order stated that the appointment was illegal as it was made by H.S. Rathore without the approval of the Competent Authority. The order cited the terms and conditions of the appointment letter which allowed for termination.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent challenged his termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, arguing that his appointment was valid and any irregularities should have been investigated. The Tribunal, however, upheld the termination, stating that H.S. Rathore lacked the authority to make the appointment without the Competent Authority’s approval. The Tribunal also noted that the selection process was flawed and that the respondent was related to H.S. Rathore.

The respondent then appealed to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the termination order was issued without giving the respondent an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court emphasized that the termination order only cited the lack of approval from the competent authority and did not address other issues raised by the department.

Legal Framework

The appointment of the Veterinary Compounder was governed by the “Central Cattle Breeding Farm (Class III and IV Post) Recruitment Rules, 1969.” These rules required that appointments be made by an authorized officer after obtaining prior approval from the Competent Authority. The Central Administrative Tribunal relied on a Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No. F.7/14/61 -Ests.(A) dated 24.1.63, which clarified that an officer performing the current duties of a post can exercise administrative or financial powers but not statutory powers. The Tribunal noted that H.S. Rathore, as an Agriculture Officer in charge of current duties, did not have the statutory power to make appointments.

The respondent had claimed violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which provides safeguards to civil servants against arbitrary dismissal. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into this aspect.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appointment of the respondent was illegal because it was made by H.S. Rathore, who was only an Agriculture Officer in charge and not authorized to make appointments.
• H.S. Rathore did not obtain prior approval from the competent authority, as required by the recruitment rules.
• The selection process was flawed as the selection board was not constituted as per rules. H.S. Rathore unilaterally constituted a board of seven members, including himself, and acted as chairman. The board included members who were not from Central or State Government offices, as required. Additionally, the respondent was related to H.S. Rathore.
• The termination order was a simple termination based on the illegality of the appointment and did not require a prior hearing.
• The appellants relied on the judgments in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Das & Ors. and State of Manipur and Ors. Vs. Y. Token Singh and Ors. to argue that no prior opportunity was required when the appointment was void ab initio.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The appointment was made after following due process, including a public advertisement and a selection process.
• The lack of prior approval from the competent authority was a mere irregularity and did not render the appointment void.
• The termination order was issued without giving him an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
• The respondent relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of The Remington Rand of India Ltd. Vs. The Workmen, Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal Vs. Parkash Wanti (Smt.) (Dead) and Anr. and Montreal Street Railway Company Vs. Normandin to argue that the termination order was illegal.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the appointment was a nullity, thus not requiring a hearing before termination, which was based on the interpretation of the rules and the facts of the case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appointment of the respondent to the post of Veterinary Compounder, made by the Director Incharge without approval of the Competent Authority, was a nullity or a mere irregularity.
2. Whether the respondent’s services could be terminated without giving him an opportunity of hearing.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran [1995 Suppl. 4 SCC 100] – Supreme Court of India: The Tribunal relied on this case to support the view that appointments made without following statutory rules are invalid.
• State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association & Ors. [1994 2 SCC 204] – Supreme Court of India: The Tribunal relied on this case to support the view that appointments made without following statutory rules are invalid.
• Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Das & Ors. [2002 4 SCC 503] – Supreme Court of India: The Tribunal relied on this case to support the view that appointments made without following statutory rules are invalid. The Supreme Court also relied on this case to support the view that if appointment orders are a nullity, the question of observance of principles of natural justice would not arise.
• State of Manipur and Ors. Vs. Y. Token Singh and Ors. [2007 5 SCC 65] – Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court relied on this case to support the view that principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with when the facts are admitted and it would be a futile exercise.
• M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1999 6 SCC 237] – Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court adverted to this case to explain the “useless formality” theory.
• Bar Council of India Vs. High Court of Kerala [2004 6 SCC 311] – Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court relied on this case to support the view that principles of natural justice cannot be stretched too far and their application may be subject to the provisions of a statute or statutory rule.
• Dhirender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [1997 2 SCC 712] – Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court relied on this case to support the view that termination of an appointment without notice is valid if the appointment was not approved by the competent authority.

Cases Relied Upon by the Respondent:

• The Remington Rand of India Ltd. Vs. The Workmen [1968 1 SCR 164] – Supreme Court of India: The respondent relied on this case to argue that the lack of approval was a mere irregularity. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by stating that in the present case the letter of appointment could be issued by the designated director and only after grant of prior approval from the competent authority.
• Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal Vs. Parkash Wanti (Smt.) (Dead) and Anr. [1995 5 SCC 159] – Supreme Court of India: The respondent relied on this case to argue that the lack of approval was a mere irregularity. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by stating that in the present case, the letter of appointment was issued illegally without the prior approval of the competent authority.
• Montreal Street Railway Company Vs. Normandin [AIR (1917) Privy Council 142] – Privy Council: The respondent relied on this case to argue that the lack of approval was a mere irregularity. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by stating that in the present case, the requirement to obtain prior approval of the competent authority has been made an essential requirement.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Central Cattle Breeding Farms (Class III and Class IV posts) Recruitment Rules, 1969: These rules governed the recruitment process for the post of Veterinary Compounder, requiring prior approval from the competent authority for appointments.
• Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, OM No. F.7/14/61 -Ests.(A) dated 24.1.63: This memorandum clarified that an officer performing the current duties of a post cannot exercise statutory powers.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Das & Ors. [CITATION] and State of Manipur and Ors. Vs. Y. Token Singh and Ors. [CITATION] to support its view that no prior opportunity was required when the appointment was void ab initio.
• The Supreme Court distinguished The Remington Rand of India Ltd. Vs. The Workmen [CITATION], Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal Vs. Parkash Wanti (Smt.) (Dead) and Anr. [CITATION] and Montreal Street Railway Company Vs. Normandin [CITATION], stating that these cases did not apply to the present factual matrix where prior approval was an essential requirement.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appointment of the respondent was made without the prior approval of the competent authority, which was a mandatory requirement under the recruitment rules. The Court emphasized that this lack of approval rendered the appointment a nullity, not a mere irregularity. The Court also considered the fact that the appointment was made by an officer who did not have the authority to do so, further supporting its conclusion that the appointment was illegal.

The Court also considered the fact that the selection process was flawed, with H.S. Rathore unilaterally constituting the selection board and acting as its chairman, while also being related to the respondent. The Court highlighted that all appointments made by H.S. Rathore were under scrutiny by the Ministry, indicating a systemic issue of fraudulent appointments.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations (70%), focusing on the interpretation of the recruitment rules and the legal implications of an appointment made without proper authority and approval. The factual aspects (30%), such as the flawed selection process and the relationship between H.S. Rathore and the respondent, were also considered but were secondary to the legal analysis.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations that would have validated the appointment. Instead, it focused on the clear violation of the recruitment rules and the lack of authority of the appointing officer. The Court concluded that the appointment was a nullity and therefore, no hearing was required before termination.

The Court reasoned that the appointment was void ab initio, meaning that it was invalid from the beginning. As such, the respondent never had a legal right to the post, and therefore, no right to a hearing before termination. The Court relied on the principle that “those who come by the back door have to return by the same back door.”

The Court also highlighted the “useless formality” theory, stating that giving a hearing in this case would have been a futile exercise, as the outcome would not have changed due to the fundamental illegality of the appointment. The Court observed that the termination order was a simple termination and did not reflect on the conduct of the respondent.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, with the other two judges concurring. There was no minority or dissenting opinion.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the recruitment rules and the principle that appointments made without proper authority and approval are invalid. The Court’s application of the “useless formality” theory further reinforced its decision that a hearing was not necessary in this case.

The decision has implications for future cases involving appointments made without proper authorization. It establishes that such appointments are void ab initio and can be terminated without a prior hearing. This ruling also reinforces the importance of following statutory rules and procedures in government appointments.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but it reinforced the existing principle that appointments made in violation of statutory rules are a nullity. The Court also clarified the application of the “useless formality” theory in cases where the facts are admitted and a hearing would not change the outcome.

The Court explicitly rejected the arguments that the lack of approval was a mere irregularity and that a hearing was required before termination. The Court emphasized that the prior approval of the competent authority was an essential requirement and that its absence made the appointment void from the beginning.

“The subject office order dated 29.08.2000 opens with the statement that the same was issued in compliance with the Ministry’s decision vide letter No.8 -6/1999 -ADMN.III dt.18.08.2000.”

“In such a case, the next logical issue that arises for consideration is: whether the appointment letter issued to the respondent, would be a case of nullity or a mere irregularity? If it is a case of nullity, affording opportunity to the incumbent would be a mere formality and non grant of opportunity may not vitiate the final decision of termination of his services.”

“In the present case, the appointment letter was admittedly issued without the approval of the competent authority.”

Key Takeaways

• Appointments made without the prior approval of the competent authority are considered a nullity and are void ab initio.
• Such appointments can be terminated without affording the appointee an opportunity for a hearing.
• Government authorities must strictly adhere to statutory rules and procedures in making appointments.
• The “useless formality” theory can be invoked in cases where a hearing would not change the outcome due to the fundamental illegality of the appointment.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that those who obtain appointments through irregular means cannot claim protection of principles of natural justice.

The judgment has a significant impact on the appointment process in government organizations. It emphasizes the importance of following due procedure and obtaining necessary approvals to ensure the validity of appointments. It also clarifies that appointments made in violation of these rules can be terminated without a hearing. This ruling will likely lead to stricter scrutiny of appointment processes and may deter individuals from seeking appointments through irregular means.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had dismissed the respondent’s original application. No other specific directions were given.

Specific Amendments Analysis

This judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appointment made without the prior approval of the competent authority and by an officer lacking the authority to do so is a nullity. Such an appointment can be terminated without a prior hearing, as it is void from the beginning. The judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not create a new position of law but clarifies the application of the “useless formality” theory in such cases. This judgment also reinforces the importance of following statutory rules and procedures in government appointments.

Conclusion

In the case of Union of India vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh, the Supreme Court held that the appointment of the respondent as a Veterinary Compounder was a nullity because it was made without the prior approval of the competent authority and by an officer who lacked the authority to do so. The Court further held that such an appointment could be terminated without a prior hearing as it was void ab initio. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the respondent’s original application. This judgment reinforces the importance of following statutory rules and procedures in government appointments and clarifies that appointments made in violation of these rules are invalid from the beginning.

Category:

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Appointment
• Termination
• Principles of Natural Justice
• Competent Authority
• Recruitment Rules
• Central Cattle Breeding Farms (Class III and IV Post) Recruitment Rules, 1969

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Categories:

• Article 311