IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.W.J.C. No.9085 of 1993
1. Nirmal Kumar Singh
2. Kurwan Ali ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar & Others Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Mallick, Advocate
For the Respondents: G.P.-II
-----
11/19.01.2010
The petitioners were appointed on Class-III and Class-IV
post respectively in 1991. The appointment has been cancelled in
1993 by the Director on the ground that the proper procedure for
such appointment, by way of advertisement, was not followed.
A weak attempt has been made in para-6 of the writ petition
by alleging that there was an advertisement on the notice board.
However, the pleading fall short of the details about the number of
persons who had applied for the job and who were called for
interview pursuant to the alleged advertisement on the notice
board.
The counter affidavit in paragraph No.9 denies the aforesaid
averment of paragraph No.6 of the writ petition and says that the
story of advertisement on the notice board has been concocted by
the petitioners and the official records do not show any such
advertisement. The counter affidavit also says that the
advertisement is required to be issued in news paper and not on
the notice board. In matters of public employment, this also
appears to be the requirement of Article-16 of the Constitution of
India which mandates equality of opportunity being given to all
persons. Opportunity is given by issuing public advertisement.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before
cancelling their appointment. However, it has not been indicated,
other than what has been stated above in this order, that if
opportunity had been given, whether the petitioners had anything
substantial to say in response to that opportunity.
The principles of natural justice are not mere technicalities
for reversing of orders. Prejudice must also be shown.
In this case there has been no prejudice and further, it
would not be proper in the exercise of a discretionary and equitable
2.
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to perpetrate a wholly illegal appointment in public service. I,
therefore, decline to interfere in this matter and accordingly this
writ petition is dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
NKC