Jaswant Singh And Others v. State Of M.P And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDC) in February 1987 pursuant to an order issued by the Janpad Panchayat. Subsequently, the Collector, exercising powers under Section 83 of the Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981, annulled their appointments on the ground that the prescribed procedure for appointment had not been followed. The prescribed procedure was understood to require that candidates be called from the employment exchange.

The appellants challenged the Collector's cancellation order before the High Court but were unsuccessful. They then preferred the present appeal, in which they assailed the legality of the Collector's order and the High Court's affirmance of that order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Collector's order cancelling the appellants' appointments under Section 83(1) of the Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981, was vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement in Section 83(2) to afford the affected parties an opportunity of being heard before passing an order to their prejudice.
2. Whether the Collector was justified in concluding that the prescribed procedure for appointment had not been followed solely on the ground that the appellants had not been sponsored by the employment exchange, in light of the decisions in Union of India v. N. Hargopal and Excise Supdt., Malkapatnam, Krishna Distt., A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• Relying on two decisions of this Court, namely Union of India v. N. Hargopal (1987) 3 SCC 308 and Excise Supdt., Malkapatnam, Krishna Distt., A.P v. K.B.N Visweshwara Rao (1996) 6 SCC 216, it was contended that the Collector erred in holding that the prescribed procedure for appointment had not been followed merely because the appellants had not been sponsored by the employment exchange.
• It was further contended that the Collector failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 83(2) of the Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981, which require that no order prejudicial to a party be passed under Section 83(1) without giving that party an opportunity of being heard. This failure, according to the appellants, vitiated the order of cancellation.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent's counsel contended that although no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants, no different result would have followed even if such an opportunity had been afforded, because the Panchayat had not followed the prescribed procedure in making the recruitment in question.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Union of India v. N. Hargopal, (1987) 3 SCC 308	Cited by the appellants to argue that the Collector could not conclude that the prescribed procedure had not been followed merely because the candidates had not been sponsored by the employment exchange.	The Court expressly declined to examine this contention and left it open for the Collector to consider and decide, if he chooses to pass a fresh order.
Excise Supdt., Malkapatnam, Krishna Distt., A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, (1996) 6 SCC 216	Similarly cited by the appellants to support the proposition that non-sponsorship by the employment exchange alone does not establish that the prescribed recruitment procedure was not followed.	The Court did not adjudicate on this precedent in the present decision and left the issue for consideration by the Collector in any fresh proceedings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court chose not to adjudicate on the first contention related to the effect of non-sponsorship by the employment exchange and the applicability of the cited precedents. It stated that, in view of the order it proposed to pass, this aspect should be left to the Collector to examine and decide.

On the second contention, regarding compliance with Section 83(2) of the Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981, the Court found the appellants' argument to be "unassailable." It interpreted Section 83(2) to mean that no order under Section 83(1) could be made to the prejudice of a party unless that party had been given an opportunity of being heard.

Applying this provision to the facts, the Court observed that:

• The appellants had been appointed pursuant to an order of the Panchayat and had been continuously serving as LDCs since February 1987.
• An order passed under Section 83(1) of the Adhiniyam cancelling their appointments would clearly be prejudicial to them.
• It was admitted that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the appellants before the Collector passed the cancellation order.

On this basis, the Court held that the mandatory requirement of Section 83(2) had not been complied with, and therefore the Collector's impugned cancellation order stood vitiated. Consequently, the Court set aside both the High Court's judgment and the Collector's order of cancellation.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The appeal was ALLOWED. The Court quashed the Collector's order cancelling the appellants' appointments and also set aside the High Court's order upholding that cancellation. It held that, due to non-compliance with Section 83(2) of the Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1981, the cancellation order was invalid.

The Court directed that, with the cancellation order having been quashed, the appellants shall be deemed to be continuing in service. At the same time, it clarified that the Collector is at liberty, if he so desires, to pass a fresh order under Section 83(1) of the Adhiniyam, provided that he follows the procedure laid down in Section 83(2), including affording the appellants an opportunity of being heard.

The immediate implication for the parties is the restoration of the appellants' service status, subject to any fresh proceedings conducted in compliance with Section 83. The opinion confines itself to the procedural invalidity of the Collector's order and does not set out broader legal principles beyond the enforcement of the hearing requirement under Section 83(2).