PETITIONER: PRAMOD LAHUDAS MESHRAM Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/09/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J) ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
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.