Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Illegal Appointments in Bihar Health Services

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 November 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 1034

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer, Deepak Gupta

Can an individual, appointed without following proper procedure, claim regularization based solely on their long service? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a batch of appeals concerning appointments in Bihar’s health services. This case examines whether the principle of regularization applies to those whose initial appointments were deemed illegal. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Deepak Gupta, with the opinion authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Case Background

The case revolves around numerous individuals who were appointed to Class III and Class IV positions within Bihar’s primary health centers. These appointments were made by the respective Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officers without adhering to the established legal recruitment processes. The State Government, upon discovering widespread irregularities, found that many appointments were based on forged documents and were made without proper procedures. Consequently, the government cancelled these appointments, leading to the discharge of the concerned employees.

The employees challenged their discharge before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which initially set aside the discharge orders based on violations of natural justice. The High Court directed reinstatement without back pay. Subsequently, the State Government initiated proceedings to terminate the services of these employees again, after issuing show-cause notices. The employees failed to prove the legality of their appointments, and their services were terminated once more. This led to further legal challenges, eventually reaching the Division Bench of the Patna High Court.

The Division Bench, acknowledging the long service of the employees, directed the State Government to reconsider the cases for regularization, referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1. A committee was formed to examine individual cases, categorizing appointments as either secured on false documents, illegal, or irregular. Those with irregular appointments were considered for regularization, while others were terminated. This decision was challenged again, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The initial challenge to the discharge orders was successful in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which cited a violation of the principles of natural justice. The High Court ordered reinstatement but without back pay for the intervening period. However, after the State Government re-initiated termination proceedings, the matter returned to the High Court. The Division Bench, in State of Bihar v. Purendra Sulan Kit, 2006 (3) PLJR 386, directed the State to reconsider the cases for regularization based on the judgment in Umadevi (supra). A State Committee was formed to examine the cases, which categorized the appointments and recommended regularization for some. The subsequent termination orders were challenged again, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and principles:

• Circular No. 16440 dated 03.12.1980: Issued by the Government of Bihar’s Administrative Reforms Department, this circular outlines the procedure for appointments to Class III posts. It specifies how vacancies should be notified, applications should be called for, and merit lists should be prepared. It also details the constitution of selection committees and the duration of merit and wait lists. The circular aims to ensure fairness and transparency in appointments, in line with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

• Circular No. 16441 dated 03.12.1980: Similar to the above, this circular provides guidelines for appointments to Class IV posts in the Muffassil Offices of the Government. It also aims to ensure a fair and transparent process for these appointments.

• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India: These articles guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The circulars mentioned above were issued to ensure compliance with these constitutional mandates.

• The Court also referred to the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, which deals with the regularization of irregularly appointed employees. The Court emphasized that appointments must be made in accordance with the relevant rules and after proper competition among qualified persons to confer any right on the appointee.

• The Court also referred to the judgment in State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others, 2010 (9) SCC 247, which clarified the exception to the general principles against regularization as a one-time measure for employees who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the State of Bihar:

• The State argued that the writ petitioners were illegally appointed and their appointments were not made against vacant posts by the competent authority. The appointments were made on non-sanctioned posts by incompetent authorities, without advertisement, and therefore, could not be saved under the judgment in Umadevi (supra).

• The State emphasized that the State Committee had examined the correctness of each appointment and found them to be illegal. The State contended that those whose appointments were found to be irregular were distinct from those whose appointments were illegal and could not be treated on the same footing.

Arguments on behalf of the Writ Petitioners (Employees):

• The employees argued that they possessed the requisite qualifications for their respective posts. They were appointed by a committee headed by the Regional Deputy Director, considering their past health service experience and qualifications. They had been working in different primary health centers for 2 to 3 decades.

• The employees contended that their appointments were protected by the judgments in Umadevi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra), and therefore, they could not be terminated from service without a disciplinary inquiry.

Table of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the writ petitioners were legally and validly appointed.
2. Whether the writ petitioners are entitled to regularization based on their long service, in light of the judgments in Umadevi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra).
3. Whether the termination of the writ petitioners’ services was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1: This Constitution Bench judgment laid down the law on regularization of irregularly appointed employees. The Court emphasized that appointments must be made in accordance with the relevant rules and after proper competition among qualified persons. It also provided an exception for regularization as a one-time measure for employees who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts, provided their appointments were not illegal.

• State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others, 2010 (9) SCC 247: This case clarified the exception to the general principles against regularization as a one-time measure for employees who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts. However, it also emphasized that the appointment should not be illegal, even if irregular.

• State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436: This case held that an appointment that was bad at the time of initial appointment cannot be sanctified at a later stage.

• State of Bihar v. Purendra Sulan Kit, 2006 (3) PLJR 386: The Division Bench of the Patna High Court directed the State Government to reconsider the cases of affected employees for regularization based on the judgment in Umadevi (supra).

Legal Provisions:

• Circular No. 16440 dated 03.12.1980: Issued by the Government of Bihar’s Administrative Reforms Department, this circular outlines the procedure for appointments to Class III posts.

• Circular No. 16441 dated 03.12.1980: This circular provides guidelines for appointments to Class IV posts in the Muffassil Offices of the Government.

• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India: These articles guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Table of Authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1: The Court relied on this judgment to emphasize that appointments must be made according to rules and through proper competition. It clarified that the exception for regularization is only for irregular appointments, not illegal ones.

• State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others, 2010 (9) SCC 247: The Court used this judgment to highlight that while it provided for a one-time measure for regularization, it also clearly stated that such regularization is not applicable to illegal appointments.

• State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436: The Court cited this case to support its view that an appointment that was bad at the initial stage cannot be sanctified later.

• Circulars No. 16440 and 16441 dated 03.12.1980: The Court noted that the appointments were not made in accordance with these circulars, which were designed to ensure fairness and transparency in public appointments.

The Supreme Court held that the appointments of the writ petitioners were illegal and void ab initio. The Court emphasized that the exception for regularization under Umadevi (supra) applies only to irregular appointments, not illegal ones. The Court found that the appointments were made on the basis of forged documents or without following any due process. Therefore, the Court upheld the termination orders and dismissed the appeals filed by the writ petitioners, while allowing the appeals filed by the State of Bihar.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Illegality of Appointments: The most significant factor was the finding that the appointments were illegal and void ab initio. The Court emphasized that many appointments were based on forged documents or were made without following any due process. This illegality could not be cured by the length of service.

• Adherence to Rules: The Court stressed the importance of following the prescribed rules and procedures for public appointments. The appointments in question were made in violation of the circulars issued by the Government of Bihar, which were designed to ensure fairness and transparency.

• Precedent of Umadevi (supra): The Court interpreted the judgment in Umadevi (supra) strictly, emphasizing that the exception for regularization is only for irregular appointments, not illegal ones. The Court clarified that the judgment in M.L. Kesari (supra) also supported this interpretation.

• No Right to Regularization: The Court held that merely because an employee has worked for a long time, they do not acquire a right to regularization if their initial appointment was illegal. The Court emphasized that such a principle would undermine the constitutional scheme for public employment.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was influenced more by legal principles than factual aspects of the case. The ratio is as follows:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. The Court did not accept the argument that long service could legitimize illegal appointments, citing the constitutional scheme for public employment. The Court emphasized that such an interpretation would undermine the principles of equality and fairness in public employment. The final decision was reached by strictly adhering to the principles laid down in Umadevi (supra) and other relevant precedents.

The court’s reasoning is as follows:

• The appointments were made by incompetent authorities on non-sanctioned posts, without following due process.

• The employees failed to establish the genuineness or legality of their appointments before the State Committee.

• The exception for regularization under Umadevi (supra) applies only to irregular appointments, not illegal ones.

• Since the appointments were void ab initio, the employees could not be considered civil servants of the State, and therefore, disciplinary proceedings were not required.

The Court quoted from the judgment in Umadevi (supra):

“Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.”

“It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules.”

“The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates.”

Key Takeaways

• Illegal appointments cannot be regularized: The judgment clarifies that long service does not legitimize an illegal appointment. Employees appointed without following due process cannot claim regularization, even if they have served for many years.

• Importance of due process: The ruling emphasizes the importance of following proper recruitment procedures for public appointments. Appointments made in violation of these procedures are void ab initio.

• Strict interpretation of Umadevi (supra): The Supreme Court has strictly interpreted the exception for regularization under Umadevi (supra), limiting it to irregular appointments and not extending it to illegal ones.

• No disciplinary proceedings required for void appointments: The judgment states that employees whose appointments are void ab initio are not considered civil servants and therefore, are not entitled to disciplinary proceedings before termination.

Potential Future Impact:

This judgment reinforces the principle that public employment must adhere to constitutional and statutory mandates. It is likely to deter irregular appointments and ensure that public employment is based on merit and due process. The judgment may also impact similar cases across the country, where employees seek regularization based on long service despite illegal initial appointments.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than allowing the appeals of the State of Bihar and dismissing the appeals of the writ petitioners.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that illegal appointments, made without following due process and in violation of constitutional and statutory mandates, cannot be regularized based on long service. The exception provided in Umadevi (supra) for regularization applies only to irregular appointments, not illegal ones. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to proper recruitment procedures for public employment.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the strict interpretation of the exception provided in Umadevi (supra). It emphasizes that the exception is not a blanket provision for regularization of all long-serving employees but is limited to those whose appointments were irregular, not illegal. The judgment reinforces the principle that illegal appointments cannot be legitimized by long service.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in The State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad upholds the termination of illegally appointed employees in Bihar’s health services. The Court clarified that long service does not legitimize illegal appointments and that the exception for regularization under Umadevi (supra) applies only to irregular appointments. The judgment reinforces the importance of due process in public employment and serves as a reminder that appointments made in violation of constitutional and statutory mandates are void ab initio.