- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sitendra Kumar Singh With Analogous Cases v. State Of Bihar & Ors. S (In All).
Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
Multiple writ applications, filed for a common cause, challenged terminations of petitioners who had served under the respondents (Health Department) for more than a decade. The cases involve substantially identical facts and were heard together and disposed of by a single order.
Petitioners held Class III and Class IV posts (some appointed directly, some regularised from daily wages). Many petitioners had their service books opened, were made permanent, and some received time-bound promotions; several served for about two decades. In various instances, appointments were questioned by authorities, inquiries were held (sometimes by Divisional Commissioners), and in some cases this Court directed payment of withheld salary arrears pending inquiry.
The State contended that many appointments were illegal — made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, based on forged appointment letters, made by authorities lacking competence, or against non-sanctioned posts — and therefore justified termination. Petitioners said the terminations (often at the fag end of their careers) were arbitrary and equity should be invoked to save their appointments given their prolonged continuance in service.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether petitioners who continued in service for ten years or more can be terminated solely for procedural defects in their original appointment.
- Whether equitable relief (invoking equity) can be applied to save appointments that may have been made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, particularly when employees have continued in service for a prolonged period.
- How to treat cases where appointments are alleged to have been obtained by forged documents or fake appointment letters — whether such employees can be summarily terminated or must be subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- Many petitioners were appointed to Class III/IV posts (some directly, some regularised from daily wages) and continued in service for more than ten years, with service books opened, permanency conferred, and in some cases promotions given.
- Terminations were effected in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner at the fag end of the petitioners' careers.
- The court should invoke equity to strike a balance and save the appointments, given prolonged continuance in service.
Respondents' / State's Arguments
- The petitioners were appointed illegally without following legally required procedures; such appointments were contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and thus subject to termination.
- Some appointment letters were forged and some appointments were made by authorities lacking competence or against non-sanctioned posts, justifying termination.
- The State argued that appointments made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 should not be saved by applying equity, as that would perpetuate illegality.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Roshni Devi v. State of Haryana, (1998) 8 SCC 59 | Where recruitment is found invalid, appointments may be saved on equitable considerations given prolonged continuation of the employee in service. | The Court relied on this principle to support saving appointments of long‑serving employees despite procedural infirmities. |
| Union of India v. Kishori Lal Bablani, (1991) 1 SCC 729 | Broad principle that appointments should not be reopened after lapse of several years. | The Court cited this to reinforce that long lapse militates against reopening appointments. |
| Roshan Lal v. International Airport Authority of India, 1980 (Supp) SCC 449 | It is late in the day to question legality of appointments several years after appointment; reopening not justified. | The Court quoted this authority to underline that delayed challenges to appointment legality are generally disfavoured. |
| Abhay Kumar Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2000 (2) PLJR 115 | Continuation in service for about nine years warranted saving termination by equitable principles. | The Court applied the ratio to the present facts and noted that the High Court's reasoning had subsequently been upheld by the apex court in SLP No. 10405 of 2001. |
| Subodh Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2001 (3) PLJR (SC) 187 | Obtaining service on the strength of fake appointment letters is a case for disciplinary action. | The Court held that forged‑appointment cases should be identified and subjected to disciplinary inquiry rather than summary termination. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in a structured factual and legal analysis:
- Factual categorisation: The Court identified categories of cases — appointments following advertisement or employment‑exchange referral but later found procedurally defective; regularisations from daily wages; appointments without advertisement; appointments alleged to be founded on forged documents or by incompetent authorities; and appointments to non‑sanctioned posts.
- Recognition of acquiescence and prolonged continuance: The Court observed that petitioners had commonly continued in uninterrupted service for more than a decade, with service books opened, confirmation/permanency and sometimes promotions — circumstances in which the administrative authorities had effectively acquiesced in the infirmities.
- Rule of law and statutory mandates: The Court acknowledged that public posts must be filled in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 and that appointments invalid for non‑observance of law should ordinarily be nipped in the bud. The Court nonetheless balanced this with equitable considerations where delay and long continuance had occurred.
- Precedent application: Citing and relying on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions (Roshni Devi, Kishori Lal Bablani, Roshan Lal, Abhay Kumar Pandey), the Court concluded that the question whether long‑continuing employees may be terminated for procedural defects is no longer res integra and that equity can save such appointments after a substantial lapse of time.
- Treatment of forged‑appointment cases: The Court distinguished forged‑document cases from mere procedural defects. It held that while the State may identify cases involving forged appointment letters and pursue disciplinary action after holding proper inquiry and providing opportunity of hearing, summary terminations without inquiry cannot be sustained.
- Public interest consideration: The Court noted that large‑scale termination of Class III and IV employees in the Health Department without providing alternative arrangements jeopardised public interest (field and hospital services), and that the welfare State should not act arbitrarily to jeopardise citizens' livelihoods.
- Equitable conclusion: On balance, considering prolonged continuance in service, administrative acquiescence, relevant precedent and public interest, the Court found it appropriate to invoke equity to save the appointments and to hold the terminations arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
Holding: All the writ applications were allowed and the impugned orders of termination were set aside; the petitioners were directed to be reinstated.
Direct consequences for the parties:
- Petitioners are to be reinstated in service.
- Petitioners are not entitled to salary/remuneration for any period during which they did not actually work.
- The State remains at liberty to identify cases involving forged appointment letters and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those individuals after conducting proper inquiry and providing opportunity of hearing; however, summary termination without inquiry is not permitted.
- No orders as to costs were made.
Broader legal implication (as reflected in the opinion): The decision applies established precedents to hold that prolonged continuance in public service and administrative acquiescence may, in equity, bar reopening of possibly defective appointments; the Court relied on existing case law rather than announcing a novel principle.
Heard respective counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel No. 1 for the State.
2. All these writ applications have been filed for common cause, as the petitioners have been terminated from their services after serving under the respondents for more than a decade.
3. The facts involved in all these cases are identical, therefore, individual cases are not required to be scrutinised separately, and, accordingly, these writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.
4. According to the cases of the petitioners, some of them were appointed directly on Class III posts and Class IV posts and some of them were regularised from daily wages to Class IV posts. The majority of the petitioners continued in services for more than 10 years on regular basis, their service books etc. were opened and they were made permanent and some of them were granted time bound promotions. Many of the petitioners are said to have continued in services even for about 20 years. There are cases, where the petitioners appointments were doubted by the authorises and inquiries were held from the end of the respective Divisional Commissioners and even their salaries were withheld and on inquiry their appointments were found to be valid and in many of the cases, this Court directed to pay the arrears of salaries which were withheld pending inquiry.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners now have been terminated at the fag end of their career in most unreasonable and arbitrary manner and since they continued in services for more than a decade, they could not have been terminated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate for this Court to invoke equity to strike a balance, so that their appointments may be saved.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the contrary with reference to their counter affidavits, which have been filed in some of the cases, submitted that the petitioners were appointed illegally without following the procedure laid down in law, and when their appointments were found to be contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution they have been terminated. It is the further stand of the State that in many of the cases the appointment letters have been found to be forged and many of the petitioners were appointed on non-sanctioned posts, and, therefore, the State authority had competence to terminate them. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, going one step further, submits that the appointments made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution should not be saved by applying equity, as it would amount to allowing the illegality to perpetuate.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the writ petitioners were appointed on Class III and Class IV posts in the Health Department and they were posted at different places. In some of the cases, it is noticed that the posts were advertised or the names were called for from the respective Employment Exchanges and pursuant to the applications filed by the petitioners their cases were considered and they were appointed. In some of the cases many of the petitioners were engaged on daily wages and subsequently, they were regularised on direction of the higher authorities by selection committee and some of the petitioners were appointed without advertisement in exigency of works. All these petitioners, thus, continued in services under the respondents for more than a decade and some of them even served for about two decades and now they have been terminated mostly for procedural defects. In some of the cases, it appears that many of the petitioners have been terminated on the ground that they obtained their appointments on strength of fake appointment letters by an authority, who was not competent to appoint them.
8. The cases of the petitioners can be categorised as follows:
(i) Many of the petitioners have been appointed pursuant to advertisement either in the newspaper or notified on the notice-board of the offices or after calling for their names from the respective Employment Exchanges, but they have been terminated for procedural defects.
(ii) Some of the petitioners are said to have been appointed by way of regularisation from daily wages to Class IV posts.
(iii) Some of the petitioners are said to have been appointed without advertisement and without calling for their names from the Employment Exchange.
(iv) Some of the petitioners are alleged to have obtained their appointments on the basis of forged documents or some of the appointment letters have been found to be forged and they have been appointed by an authority, who had no competence to do so.
(v) Some of the petitioners are said to have been appointed on non-sanctioned posts.
9. The facts, which have been noticed above, are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that all these petitioners were appointed by the authorities concerned and they continued in their services for more than a decade.
10. Now, according to the case of the respondents, the petitioners have been terminated on detection of the procedural wrongs committed by the authorities at the initial stage of the appointment of the petitioners. It is also the case of the respondents that some of the appointments are alleged to have been obtained on the basis of forged appointment letters and the authorities, who had appointed them, were not competent to do so and most of the petitioners were appointed against non-sanctioned posts.
11. But, at the same time, it appears that all these petitioners continued in services for more than a decade and they were made permanent, their service books were opened and even some of them were given their time bound promotions. Now the State authorities are pointing out the procedural defects in the appointments of the petitioners. Since the petitioners continued in services under the respondents uninterruptedly for several years, the authorities acquiesced in the infirmities, irregularities and the procedural defects allegedly found in the appointment of the petitioners, and, therefore, the authorities were not justified in reopening the matter after a lapse of a decade or more, as the irregularities, infirmities and procedural defects stood cured by efflux of time.
12. It is true that public posts must be filled up in accordance with the mandate laid down in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the appointments, if found to be invalid for non-observance of the mandate of law, are required to be nipped at the buds and the same should not be allowed to bloom and flourish giving legitimate expectation to such appointees that they have validly been appointed and confirmed in services.
13. The State authorities, in this view of the matter, were wholly unjustified and unreasonable in re-opening the matter finding faults in the appointment of the petitioners after long lapse of time and this should not be the motto of the welfare State at this Stage, which professes equality before law and right to livelihood, to act arbitrarily and unreasonably. On the contrary, it should be the foremost duty of the welfare State to protect the interest of its citizen and, in no way, it should act to jeopardise the interest of the public at large for the faults of their officials. In no case, it is pointed out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that appropriate action has been taken against such authority, who made such appointments and allowed the appointees to continue in service for long. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the beneficiaries and the authorities, who conferred such benefits, are equally accountable for the irregular and invalid appointments and the appointments, if any, found to be invalid after lapse of a decade, such appointments, in my opinion, should be saved on equitable consideration.
14. The Rule of Law is antithesis of arbitrariness and it should be the foremost duty of the Court to enforce the Rule of Law to neutralize the arbitrariness, if any, committed by the State.
15. There is altogether a different category of cases, where some of the petitioners are alleged to have obtained their services on strength of forged appointment letters, but their cases have been treated at par with the other employees, in whose appointments procedural defects have been found. To deal with such cases, the authorities could have resorted to disciplinary actions against such employees after holding proper inquiries, but, in no case, they could have been terminated summarily.
16. I have scrutinised the facts of the cases and have also gone through the contents of the respective counter affidavits filed in some of the cases. Basically, it appears that the petitioners have been terminated for procedural defects. In some of the cases, it appears to me that at some stage, the appointments of some of the petitioners were doubted and inquiries were entrusted to the respective Divisional Commissioners and their salaries were withheld pending inquiries. The respective Divisional Commissioners on inquiries found the appointments of those petitioners valid and in some of the cases, even this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution directed for payment of arrears of their salaries pending inquiries.
17. Since this Court has examined several cases, which are being disposed of by this order, it has reason to believe that Class III and Class IV employees serving under the Health Department have been terminated in large scale without making alternative arrangements either in field or in the hospitals to cater the need of the people and, thus, it appears to me that the interest of the public at large has been jeopardised.
18. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and the question, which emerges for consideration, is as to whether the petitioners, who continued in services for ten years or more can be terminated for procedural defects.
19. This question is no more res integra and the same has been set at rest by various judgments of this Court and of the apex court.
20. In the case of Roshni Devi v. State of Haryana [(1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 59], the apex court held that recruitment process, pursuant to which the appointment was made, is found to be invalid, such appointments should be saved on equitable consideration keeping in view the prolonged continuation of such employees. The apex court further observed that even assuming that some of the persons, who may not have been appointed strictly in accordance with law, have been appointed and continued in services for several years, should not be disturbed. The principles laid down in the case of Roshni Devi (supra), however, have also been reiterated by the apex court in Union of India v. Kishori Lal Bablani [(1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 729]. In the case of Union of India (supra) though the issue was not directly involved, but the apex court on the broader principle held that the appointments made should not be reopened after lapse of several years. The apex court in its earlier judgment in Roshan Lal v. International Airport Authority of India (1980 (Supplementary) Supreme Court Cases, 449) observed.
“……………we are afraid that it is rather late in the day for the petitioners to question the appointment of the respondents as Airport Officers (Operations). The respondents were appointed as Airport Officers in 1975 and the present writ petitions were filed in 1978. We do not think we will be justified in reopening the question of the legality of the appointment of the respondent as Airport Officers several years after their appointment.”
21. This Court in the case of Abhay Kumar Pandey v. State of Bihar (2000 (2) PLJR 115) held that since the petitioners continued in services for about nine years, the termination should be saved by applying the principles of equity. The ratio laid down by this Court in Abhay Kumar Pandey (supra) now has been upheld by the apex court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 10405 of 2001 holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, equities were required to be properly applied and set aside the judgment of a Bench of this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal.
22. So far the forged appointments are concerned, the State authorities will be at liberty to identify such cases and take disciplinary action against such persons after holding inquiry and giving an opportunity of being heard to them, but, in no case, their action in terminating such employees without inquiry can be allowed to sustain. In case of Subodh Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2001) 3 Patna Law Journal Reports (SC), 187), the apex court has held that obtainment of service on the strength of fake appointment letters constitutes a case for disciplinary action.
23. Keeping in view the facts and the legal propositions, as noticed above, in my opinion, the cases of the petitioners of all the categories, enumerated above, should be considered equitably in view of their prolonged continuance in services and, therefore, it would be most appropriate, in the given facts and circumstances of the cases, to invoke equity in favour of the petitioners to save even invalid appointments and the action of the authorities are held to be highly arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction.
24. In the result, all these writ applications are allowed, orders impugned are set aside and the petitioners are directed to be reinstated. However, the petitioners will not be entitled for their salary/remuneration for the period they have not actually worked.
25. No orders as to costs.
Alert