State of
M.P. & Ors Vs. Hyama Pardhi [1995] INSC
683 (16 November 1995)
K. Ramaswamy,
B.L. Hansaria
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Delay
condoned.
Leave
granted.
These
appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur
M.P. Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-ministerial (Related to
the Directorate Health Services) Class-III Services Recruitment Rules, 1989
(for short 'the Rules'), made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,
prescribed qualification for the appointment of Auxilliary Nurse-cum-Midwife
(ANM), viz., 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as qualitative subjects.
Admittedly, the respondents had not possessed that qualification. It would be
seen that the District Medical Officer, therefore, wrongly selected the
respondents and sent them to the training. After their successful completion of
the training, he made appointment as A.N.M. in the pay scale of Rs.950-1350/-.
The respondents were served with notice dated 31st January, 1994 intimating that their selection for training was illegal
and their services would be terminated with effect from February 23, 1994. The respondents challenged the
cancellation of their appointment.
The
Tribunal in the impugned order had held that the respondents having been
selected and undergone the training and the competent authority having duly
appointed them, cancellation of their appointment without any opportunity is violative
of the principles of natural justice and it accordingly set aside the order and
directed their reinstatement with consequential benefits. Hence, these appeals
by special leave.
It is
now an admitted fact across the Bar that the respondents had not possessed the
pre-requisite qualification, namely, 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and Biology
as subjects. The Rules specifically provide that qualification as a condition
for appointment to the post of ANM. Since prescribed qualifications had not
been satisfied, the initial selection to undergo training is per se illegal.
Later
appointments thereof are in violation of the statutory rules. The Tribunal,
therefore, was not right in directing the reinstatement of respondents. The
question or violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise. The
ratio of Shrawan Kumar Jha and Others vs. State of Bihar and others (AIR 1991
SC 309), strongly relied on, has no application to the facts of this case. That
was a case where appellants possessed initial qualifications but they did not
undergo the training. Since the appointment was set aside on the ground of want
of training, this Court interfered with; directed the Government to reinstate
them into service and further directed them to send the appellants therein for
training.
The
appeals are allowed and O.As. stand dismissed.
No
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
