Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO._7392___2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.28971 of 2013)

State of Bihar and Ors. ...   Appellant (s)

Versus

Chandreshwar Pathak      ...   Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. Leave granted.   

2. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  by  the  State  of  Bihar  

against the order dated 05.01.2012 of the Division Bench of the  

High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No.945 of 2010, which  

has the effect of quashing the order dated 26.09.2003 passed  

by  the  of  Criminal  Investigation  Department,  Patna,  Bihar,  

terminating the services of the respondent herein.

1

Page 2

3. The respondent was temporarily appointed to the post of  

constable  by  the  Inspector  General  of  Police,  Criminal  

Investigation  Department,  Patna,  Bihar,  vide  his  order  dated  

14.01.1988  with  the  stipulation  that  his  service  could  be  

terminated without assigning any reason or show cause.  In the  

year  2000,  the  High  Court  of  Patna  considered the  issue  of  

backdoor  appointments  made  in  the  police  department  in  

another  case which led to  a direction by the Department  of  

Home (Police),  Government of Bihar dated 04.09.2000 to the  

Police Headquarter, Bihar to review irregular appointments and  

to remove such appointees from service.   

4. Accordingly,  a show cause notice dated 10.09.2003 was  

issued  to  the  respondent-writ  petitioner  asking  him why  his  

appointment should not be cancelled and since no valid reason  

was shown in his  reply,  order  dated 26.09.2003 was passed  

terminating the services of the respondent.   

5. Challenging  the  above  order,  the  respondent  herein  

preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Patna which  

was  heard  by  a  learned  single  Judge.   By  order  dated  

09.04.2010, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition  

with the following observations:

2

Page 3

“This Court is not satisfied that the petitioner  has  made  out  a  case  for  interference  with  the  order of termination from what appears to be an   illegal appointment based on the spoils systems.

Apart from the illegal entry into services, the   alleged regularisation is of no avail to him as it is   apparently a single case considered without others   to dole out an individual benefit.

The submission that he had served for 16 long   years  and,  therefore,  his  case  should  be  considered sympathetically does not appeal to this   Court.

The petitioner must perish by the same sword  by which he came.

Reliance of the petitioner on an order of this   Court  in  C.W.J.C.  No.  5279/04  interfering  with  a   similar order of termination on the ground that it   had been passed after 15 years is best answered  by the judgment of the Supreme Court in (2005) 4   SSC  209  (Bind  Kumar  Gupta  vs.  Ram  Ashray   Mahato & Ors.) where the Supreme Court declined  to  interfere  with  an  order  of  termination  passed   after  15  years  of  service,  in  case  of  an  illegal   appointment.”

However,  on  appeal,  the  Division  Bench  allowed  the  writ  

petition following an earlier order dated 18.05.2005 in another  

case, i.e., C.W.J.C. No. 5279 of 2004 filed by one of the similarly  

placed employee.

6. We have heard Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the  

State of Bihar and Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, learned counsel for the  

respondent.

7. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  the  

Division Bench erroneously followed the judgment in  C.W.J.C.  

3

Page 4

No. 5279 of 2004 which was distinguishable as therein no show  

cause  notice  was  issued  while  in  the  present  case,  a  show  

cause notice was duly issued to the respondent.  Referring to  

the order  of  appointment,  it  was submitted that  the present  

was  a  case  of  backdoor  appointment  without  any  

advertisement or  selection process.   It  was also pointed out  

that  another  Division  Bench  of  the  same  High  Court  in  

Hemkant Jha etc. etc.  vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (L.P.A.  

No. 625 of 2003 etc.etc.  decided on 18.7.2007) dealt  with a  

group of identical matters, on remand by this Court, and upheld  

termination of services of police constables appointed without  

any selection.  Therein, it was observed:

“6. On going through the impugned judgments, the  relevant  facts  and  the  judgment  in  the  case  of   Sudhir Kumar, it is found that on facts, there is no   meaningful and serious challenge to the relevant   facts that concerned employees in these matters   have  been  appointed  on  the  post  of  Constable   without  any advertisement and without  following  procedure of appointment.  No general or order or   regulation of the State Government is available to   support  the  contention  that  appointment  of  the  appellants is  akin to compassionate appointment   for which the State Government has taken a policy   decision and prescribed rules.  In facts, there is no   controversy or issue in these matters because on   admitted facts it is clear that the appointment of   the appellants on the post of Constable were made   through a backdoor method in complete disregard  of procedure for appointment laid down in relevant   rules  in  the  Police  Manual  and  in  violation  of   constitutional  mandate  of  equality  in  public   employment.   The  State  has  rightly  relied  upon  

4

Page 5

various judgments including that of a Constitution   Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary,  State of Karnataka vs.  Uma Devi (3), reported  in  (2006)  4  SCC  1,  to  submit  that  such   appointments  do  not  confer  any  right  on  the   appointees  and  in  such  cases  of  appointments   made  without  following  due  process  as  per   mandate of the Constitution or the relevant rules   for appointment, the Court cannot direct for grant   of  benefits  like  absorption,  regularisation  or  re- engagement.  Those principles, though considered   in  that  case  in  the  context  of  absorption,   regularization,  will  apply  with  equal  force  where  such illegal appointment has been terminated and  the Court is called upon to consider such order and   the connected issue of ordering for reinstatement,   i.e., for continuation of such illegal appointments.   That Constitution Bench judgment has emphasized  the relevant aspects in paragraphs 33 and 39 and  in  paragraph  54  it  has  been  clarified  that  those   decisions  which  run  counter  to  the  principles   settled in that decision, or in which directions run  counter  to  that  decision,  will  stand  denuded  of   their status as precedents.  The same principle of   law flows from a Division Bench judgment of this   Court in the case of Amrendra Singh vs. State of  Bihar, 1999 (3) PLJR 984.   

7.   Having  found  that  the  appellants  employees   concerned are backdoor appointees as held by the  learned Judges in the impugned orders and they   have no right to their posts, we are now required  to consider the submissions advanced on behalf of   the appellants that the impugned orders should be   set  aside  because  the  termination  orders  were  issued by the various Superintendent of Police not   of  their  own  free  will  but  rather  under  the  directions  of  the  higher  authorities  including  the   State  Government  and  that  principles  of  natural   justice  were  not  within  relation  to  some  of  the   petitioners/appellants.

8.   The  submissions  noticed  above  must  be  decided in the background of facts of each case.   In  the  present  case,  the  facts  noticed  in  brief   disclose  that  large  scale  backdoor  appointments   were  detected  to  have  been  made  during  the  tenure  of  a particular  Director  General  of  Police.   An enquiry was held and thereafter as a result of   such enquiry directions were issued by the higher   

5

Page 6

authorities  to  the  Superintendents  of  Police,  the   competent authority to make appointments to the  post  of  Constable,  to  issue  show  cause  notices  wherever  such  backdoor  appointments  were  detected and to take action for their termination.   The  issue is  whether  the  State  Government  and  the successor-Director General of Police could have  held  such  enquiry  and  issued  such  directions  or   not.  In order to ensure rule of law and obedience   to  constitutional  mandate  governing  public   employment,  the  State  and  its  officials  must  be   held duty bound to take such steps and there is no   legal infirmity in such action.”  

8. It has been pointed out that S.L.P.(c) Nos. 1237-1240 of  

2008  etc.etc.  and  S.L.P.(c)  Nos.  3334-3337  of  2008   filed  

against the above judgment were dismissed by this Court on  

04.02.2008  and  04.04.2008  respectively  and  on  that  basis  

S.L.P.(c) No. 21543 of 2008 was also dismissed by this Court on  

04.09.2013 in a connected matter.   

9.  Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  supported  the  

impugned order and submitted that having regard to the fact  

that  the  respondent  had  already  served  for  15  years,  

termination of his services was not called for.   

10. The  only  question  for  consideration  is  whether  the  

appointment  of  the  respondent  made  without  any  

advertisement or selection process can be considered to be a  

6

Page 7

valid appointment to a public post protected under Articles 14  

or 311 of the Constitution of India?

11. On  due  consideration,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  

impugned judgment cannot be sustained for the reasons that  

follow.   

12. The  order  of  appointment,  in  the  present  case,  is  as  

follows:

“In the light of the order passed by the Inspector   General  of  Police,  Criminal  Investigation  Department, Bihar, Patna, vide his Letter No. 6/86  F3 Sh. Chandeshwar Pathak, s/o Sh. Devnarayam  Pathak of Village Haraji, P.O. Haraji,  PS- Dimbara,   District-  Chhapra  was  appointed  as  Constable  temporarily  from  14.01.1988  afternoon  on  the  condition  that  his  previous  character  found  satisfactory  and  as  and  when  necessary,  his   service shall be terminated without assigning any  reason  or  show  cause.   His  pay  scale  shall  be  Rs.425-10565  EB-10-605  with  the  basic  pay  of   Rs.425/-.  He has been allotted the CT No. 390.”

13. It is clear from the above order that the appointment has  

been  given  only  on  the  asking  of  the  Inspector  General  of  

Police.  There is nothing to show that any advertisement was  

issued giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to compete  

or any selection process was undertaken before appointment of  

the respondent.

7

Page 8

14. In State of Orissa & Anr.  vs. Mamata Mohanty  (2011)  

3 SCC 436, it was observed as under:

“APPOINTMENT  /  EMPLOYMENT  WITHOUT  ADVERTISEMENT:

35. At one time this Court had been of the view  that calling the names from employment exchange  would  curb  to  certain  extent  the  menace  of   nepotism  and  corruption  in  public  employment.   But,  later  on,  came to the conclusion that  some   appropriate  method  consistent  with  the  requirements  of  Article 16 should  be  followed.  In  other words there must be a notice published in   the appropriate manner calling for applications and  all those who apply in response thereto should be   considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates   are  requisitioned  from employment  exchange,  in   addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the  employer  to  invite  applications  from  all  eligible   candidates  from the open market  by  advertising  the  vacancies  in  newspapers  having  wide   circulation  or  by  announcement  in  radio  and  television  as  merely  calling  the  names  from the  employment  exchange  does  not  meet  the  requirement of the said article of the Constitution.   (Vide: Delhi  Development Horticulture Employees'   Union v. Delhi  Admn.,  State  of  Haryana v. Piara  Singh, Excise  Supdt. v. K.B.N.  Visweshwara  Rao, Arun  Tewari. v. Zila  Mansavi  Shikshak  Sangh, Binod Kumar Gupta v. Ram Ashray Mahoto,  National Fertilizers Ltd.  v.  Somvir Singh,  Telecom  District  Manager v. Keshab  Deb,  State  of  Bihar v. Upendra  Narayan  Singh  and State  of  M.P. v. Mohd. Ibrahim).

36.  Therefore,  it  is  a  settled  legal  proposition   that  no  person  can  be  appointed  even  on  a  temporary  or  ad  hoc  basis  without  inviting   applications  from  all  eligible  candidates.  If  any  appointment  is  made  by  merely  inviting  names  from the employment exchange or putting a note   on  the  notice  board  etc.  that  will  not  meet  the   requirement  of  Articles 14 and 16 of  the  Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates   of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as   it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the   

8

Page 9

post, from being considered. A person employed in   violation of these provisions is not entitled to any  relief  including  salary.  For  a  valid  and  legal   appointment mandatory compliance with the said   constitutional  requirement  is  to  be  fulfilled.  The   equality  clause  enshrined  in  Article 16 requires  that every such appointment be made by an open   advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to   compete on merit.”

15. No contrary view of this Court has been cited on behalf of  

the respondent. Moreover, another Division Bench of the same  

High Court has upheld termination in similar matter as noted  

earlier against which S.L.P. has been dismissed by this Court as  

mentioned earlier.

16. Accordingly, it has to be held that in the absence of any  

advertisement  or  selection  process,  the  appointment  of  the  

respondent is  not protected and could be validly terminated.  

Learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition  

while the Division Bench erred in interfering with the same.

17. Accordingly,  we  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the  order  

dated 05.01.2012 passed by the  Division Bench of  the High  

Court in L.P.A. No. 945 of 2010  and restore the order dated  

09.04.2010  passed  by  the  learned  single  Judge  of  the  High  

Court in C.W.J.C. No.204 of 2004.   

18. There shall be no order as to costs.

9

Page 10

   .............................................J.           [ T.S. THAKUR ]

  .............................................J.     [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]

New Delhi August 07, 2014

10