Pramod
Lahudas Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [1996] INSC 1125 (11 September 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.Faizan Uddin (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J)
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Delay
condoned.
The
petitioner complains that he being a qualified candidate with Diploma in
Engineering and Secondary Education had applied for the post of Oversear/Junior
Engineer (Civil Engineering) as per the advertisement dated April 30, 1991
published in daily 'Tarun Bharat' on May 2, 1991. The advertisement indicated
that of the 3 posts, two were reserved for backward classes and one was for
general candidates. Petitioner being a reserved class, hailing from the
Scheduled Caste, received letter of appointments from the Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli; in letter No.
PWB/Estt-I/1108/1/93 dated March 31, 1993 it was stated that a recommendation
had been made by Member Secretary, Regional Subordinate Service Selection
Board, Nagpur in their letter No. RSB/Nag/1210/M-792/PS-1/92 dated June 15, 1992 that 3 candidates were selected.
The names had been repeated and as regards the petitioner, his recommendation
letter No.RSB/Nag/1160/M-792/1992/PS-I dated July 31, 1992/7.8.92 was said to
be issued by the Member Secretary selecting the petitioner as Junior Engineer
(Civil). Pursuant thereto, he came to be appointed as a Junior Engineer with
probation for one year. After completion of nine months service, he received
the letter dated November
15, 1992 stating
therein that the above letters carried unauthorised recommendations; therefore,
the services of the petitioner were terminated. The order of the Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli was impugned by the petitioner
and others in the W.P.No.885/93 in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench claiming
that they had been regularly appointed to the posts which were advertised;
therefore, their services could not be terminated during the probation period
without affording opportunity of hearing in the enquiry. The High Court has
dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this special leave petition.
Shri
A.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that when the
posts were advertised and the candidates were found eligible, it does not
mandate that there should be an interview and selection Obviously, the Servicc
Selection Board having found the petitioner to be eligible and qualified,
recommended him and was accordingly appointed as Junior Engineer, when it was
sought to be cancelled on a letter written by Member Secretary of the Service
Selection Board, they are entitled to be heard. No such opportunity has ever
been given before cancellation of their appointments. lt was, therefore, violative
of principles of natural justice. We find no force in the contention. It is
seen that on their own admission they have merely applied for the post pursuant
to an advertisement made for the selection. It is the case of the Selection
Board that a regular selection has to be made and selecting the eligible
candidates, recommendation for appointment would be made. Therefore, the letter
said to be recommended conveying the eligible recommendations were not correct
and according to the rules when such being the admitted position, we do not
find any fault to cancel the appointments. Under those circumstances, we do not
find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents. However, such
things will not be permitted to be kept under the carpet. The State Government
is directed to refer the matter to the appropriate State CBI enquiry and the
concerned Inspector would make and independent investigation into the matter to
find out to who were responsible for such mal- practice committed and it will
be open to take appropriate criminal prosecution launched against the culprits.
The
SLP is dismissed.
This
order to be communicated to the D.G.P. Maharashtra.
Back
Pages: 1 2
