{"id":189919,"date":"1995-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995"},"modified":"2017-03-14T08:21:47","modified_gmt":"2017-03-14T02:51:47","slug":"ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995","title":{"rendered":"Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: JT 1995 (8), 563\t 1995 SCALE (6)779<\/div>\n
Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nASHWANI KUMAR & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/11\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1995 (8)   563\t  1995 SCALE  (6)779\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
(With  Civil   Appeal  Nos  10760-11058,  11062-66  of\t1995
\n(arising out  of  SLP  (C)  Nos.  13203-13213,\t13137-13140,
\n13933-13934, 14009-14030,  14031-14036, 14037-14042,  14050-
\n14067, 16237-16238,  15281-15435, 17114, 17292-17294, 14759,
\n19408, 21949, 22649, 23059, 22650-22669, 22671-22677, 22678-
\n22687, 22688-22692  of 1994, and 1041, 1243-1245, CC.254 and
\n255, SLP(C)  No.2, CC.974, SLP(C) No. 7095 and 7912, CC.1557
\nand 2302 & SLP(C) Nos.8110, 11091, 8164-8166, 13548 and 8900
\nof 1995.)
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nHANSARIA, J.\n<\/p>\n
     I have  had the  benefit of  perusing the\tjudgment  of
\nlearned brother\t Ramaswamy, J.\tin draft.  Despite the great
\nrespect he  commands at\t my hand,  I have  not been  able to
\npersuade myself\t to agree  with him.  According to  me,\t the
\nimpugned termination order deserves to be set aside, and not
\nupheld, as  opined by learned brother. To sustain any stand,
\nit is stated as below.\n<\/p>\n
2.   A wrong-doer,  a sinner,  has to  be punished;  so\t too
\nthose  who  aid,  abet\tor  instigate  him.  But  not  those
\nregarding whom\tonly a doubt is created. Full care has to be
\ntaken to  see  that  while  punishing  the  wrong-doer,\t the
\npenalty does  not visit those who may be innocent, specially
\nwhen the  penalty as such which would hit hard so much so as
\nto take away livelihood of the concerned persons.
\n2A.  This prologue  sums up  the core  question which we are
\ncalled upon  to decide in this batch of cases, which involve
\nthe fate  of 1363  appellants inasmuch\tas we have to decide
\nwhether the  services of  this number  of persons  have been
\nduly and  legally terminated  or not.  The  enormity  itself
\ncalls for  a cautious  approach. This  is  more\t so  because
\nArticle 21 of the Constitution would require us to tread the
\npath avoiding pitfalls, whose number is significant in these
\ncases.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The prima\tdonna (villain of the piece) is one Dr. A.A.
\nMallick, who  at the  relevant time  was holding the post of
\nDeputy Director\t (tuberculosis) Bihar,\tand had\t come to  be
\nvested with  almost absolute  powers to see that the targets
\nfixed by  the Government  of India  in implementing a scheme
\nrelating to  Anti-Tuberculosis programme  are achieved. When
\nit came\t to the notice of the State Government in the Health
\nDepartment that\t some centres  were not\t working as  per the
\ndirections of  Dr. Mallik,  all concerned  were asked by the
\nGovernment  to\tdo  so.\t The  saying  “Power  corrupts,\t and
\nabsolute power\tcorrupts absolutely” became true inasmuch as
\nDr. Mallik  started  either  appointing\t himself  or  giving
\ndirections right and left to appoint large number of persons
\nas class  III\/IV employees.  It was ultimately found that as
\nagainst about 2500 sanctioned posts the number of persons to
\nbe so  appointed shot up to 6000. Questions relating to this
\ncame to\t be asked  even on the floor of the Assembly by 1987
\nwhen the concerned Minister stated that the appointments had
\nbeen given  after following  all procedures.  The matter did
\nnot rest there and various persons not getting their salary,
\nthough appointed, approached the High Court of Judicature at
\nPatna – the number of such writ applications ultimately came
\nto be  around 250. The High Court observed at one stage that
\nit saw\tno reason  as to  why the  State should\t not proceed
\nagainst\t concerned   officers  who   benefitted\t  themselves
\nillegally, and\tdisposed of  the  writ\tpetitions  with\t the
\ndirection that\tan enquiry into the matter shall be held and
\nupon  consideration  of\t the  individual  cases\t appropriate
\norders shall  be passed for payment of salary for the period
\nthe concerned  person had  actually worked,  subject to\t the
\ncondition that it was found that they had fulfilled criteria
\nfor obtaining salary. Pursuant to these observations, a high
\npowered Committee  came to  be\tformed,\t consisting  of\t (1)
\nDirector-in-Chief,  Health  Services;  (2)  Deputy  Director
\n(Administration)  Health   Services;  (3)   Deputy  Director
\n(Planning)  Health   Services;\tand   (4)  Deputy   Director
\n(Tuberculosis).\t The   Committee  issued  a  general  notice
\nthrough newspapers  to all  concerned and  directed them  to
\nappear before  the Committee  for personal  hearing  between
\n17.8.92 to  29.9.92. A\treport was  submitted  subsequently,
\npursuant to  which a  blanket order  came to  be  issued  on
\n30.4.93, terminating the services of all the employees.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The same  came to\tbe challenged  again before the High
\nCourt. Long  arguments were  advanced by  both the sides and
\nafter applying its mind to various points of fact and law, a
\nDivision Bench of the High Court dismissed virtually all the
\nwrit petitions\tby its\torder dated  May 6,  1994. The\tmain
\norder of  dismissal was passed In CWJC No.4942\/93 and batch.
\nThis was  followed by  other Benches  of the  High Court  in
\nanalogous matters.  The affected  employees have filed these
\nappeals under Article 136 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
5.   We were  also addressed  at length\t by various  counsel
\nappearing for  the appellants;\tso too by the State counsel.
\nShri Shanti  Bhushan appearing\tfor some  of the  appellants
\ncovered most of the ground, which came to be supplemented by
\nothers. Shri Verma replied on behalf of the State.\n<\/p>\n
6.   disposal of  the appeals,\trequire determination of the
\nfollowing:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  Whether the initial appointments of
\n     the appellants  were in  accordance with
\n     law?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  Whether  the\t ser  vices   of  the
\n     appellants were duly regularised? and
\n     (3)  Whether natural  justice  had\t been
\n     complied with before their services were
\n     terminated?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I would consider these aspects seriatim.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.\t  Whether the  initial appointment of
\n     the appellants  were in  accordance with
\n     law?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The controversy  qua this\tfacet of the case is whether
\nthe appellants\twere required  to be  initially appointed in
\naccordance with the procedure of appointment to class III\/IV
\nposts as  contained in\tthe Office  Memorandum (OM)  of even
\nnumber issued  on December  3, 1980  by\t the  Department  of
\nPersonnel  and\t Administrative\t  Reforms   of\t the   State
\nGovernment. There  is  no  dispute  from  the  side  of\t the
\nappellants  that   the\tprocedure  had\tnot  been  followed.
\nQuestion is whether it was required to be so done?\n<\/p>\n
8.   Shri Shanti Bhushan was emphatic in his contention that
\nthis OM\t having been meant for appointment to “posts” had no
\napplication to\tthe  initial  appointment  inasmuch  as\t the
\nappellants  had\t been  appointed  on  daily  wage  basis  to
\nimplement the crash programme of eradication of tuberculosis
\nfrom the  State –  the urgency\tin the matter being apparent
\nfrom the  fact that  the State Government was issuing orders
\nto all\tconcerned to  comply with  the orders  or directions
\ngiven by  Dr. Mallik  so  as  to  achieve  the\ttarget.\t The
\nappointments  were   thus  not\tto  any\t `posts’,  as,\tsuch
\nappointments  can  be  made  only  if  sanctioned  posts  be
\navailable, which  is not  required to be so in case of daily
\nrated workers,\twho are\t appointed as and when needed and in
\nsuch number  as would  meet the\t exigency of  the situation.
\nThis was  sought to  be brought\t home by  contending that an
\nurgent need  for employing such persons may arise, say, when
\nthere is a sudden flood or earthquake, when employment would
\nnot brook  delay and financial rules of the Government would
\npermit employment of required number of persons, whose wages
\ncould be  paid out  of Contingent  Fund. This  submission is
\ncountered by  Shri Verma  for the  State, according to whom,
\neven while  making initial  appointment the  procedure\tlaid
\ndown in the aforesaid OM was required to be followed.\n<\/p>\n
9.   To support\t his contention, Shri Shanti Bhushan brought
\nto my  notice a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
\nState of Assam vs. Kanak Chandra Dutta,<\/a> 1967 (1) SCR 679, at
\np. 683 of which it has been stated that “post may be created
\nbefore the  appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is
\nan appointment, but even appointment is not a post. A casual
\nlabourer is  not the  holder of\t a post”.  Shri Verma on the
\nother hand has sought to rely on a 3 Judge bench decision in
\nUnion of India vs. Deepchand Pandey & Anr.<\/a> 1992 (4) SCC 432.
\nAs to  this decision,  Shri Shanti  Bhushan’s contention  is
\nthat it\t has not  held that persons employed on casual basis
\nwould be holders of posts.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The observation  in  the  Constitution  Bench  case  if
\nunambiguous inasmuch  as the  statement\t is  that  a  casual
\nlabourer is  not the  holder of\t a  post.  As  to  Deepchand
\nPandey’s case  it may  first be\t mentioned that\t it has\t not
\ntaken note of the Constitution Bench decision. This apart, a
\nperusal of  the\t judgment  shows  that\tit  dealt  with\t the
\nquestion as  to whether\t a Central  Administrative Tribunal,
\nconstituted under  Administrative Tribunal  Act, 1985, which
\nwas passed  pursuant to\t Article 323-A\tof the Constitution,
\nwas vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the
\nclaim of  the respondents as against the appellant (Union of
\nIndia) and its officers in Railway Department. This question
\ncame up\t for determination  because the respondents, who had
\nbeen engaged  as casual\t typists on  daily wages  in railway
\noffices, challenged  the order\tof their  termination before
\nthe High  Court, which\tallowed the same. The Union of India
\ncontended that the High Court had no jurisdiction in view of
\nthe  provisions\t  in  the  aforesaid  Act.  To\tdecide\tthis
\nquestion, the  Bench noted  the case  of the respondents and
\nthen referred to the scope of Article 323-A and held that as
\nthe respondents\t were claiming\tthe right to continue in the
\nemployment of  the Union of India as before, with additional
\nclaim of  temporary status, it was idle to suggest that such
\nclaim was  not\tcovered\t by  the  Act.\tIt  was,  therefore,
\nconcluded that\tthe remedy of the respondents was before the
\ncentral Administrative Tribunal and not the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
11.  The judgment  in Deepchand Pandey cannot, therefore, be
\nsaid to\t have laid  down that  even casual  workers on daily
\nwages are  holders of  posts. In fact, this question had not
\narisen for  decision in\t this form  in that case. This being
\nthe position  and the  Constitution Bench  observation being
\nunambiguous, I\thold that the appointments of the appellants
\ninitially were\tnot to\tany posts,  and\t so,  the  procedure
\nmentioned in  the  aforesaid  OM  was  not  required  to  be
\nfollowed.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Whether  the  services  of\t the  appellants  were\tduly
\nregularised?\n<\/p>\n
     The aforesaid  question would  need  answering  of\t the
\nfollowing:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Was the  procedure mentioned\tin OM
\n     of 3rd  December, 1980  required  to  be
\n     followed?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)    Whether non-advertisement of the
\n     posts introduced any infirmity?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)  Whether  non-information  to  the
\n     employment exchange  for filling  up the
\n     posts   caused    any   dent    to\t  the
\n     appointments ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv)  Was there non-reservation of posts
\n     for Scheduled  Castes\/Scheduled  Tribes?
\n     If so,  whether the  same introduced any
\n     illegality\t in   the   appointments   of
\n     general candidates?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v)    Whether  the  regularisation  had
\n     been made\tpursuant to recommendation of
\n     the Selection  Committee  visualised  by
\n     the aforesaid OM\/\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vi)   Whether any panel was prepared by
\n     the Selection  Committee? If  not,\t does
\n     this provide a good ground to regard the
\n     appointments   as\t violative   of\t  the
\n     prescribed procedure ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I propose\tto discuss  these contentions  in the  order
\nnoted above.  It would\tbe  apposite  to  mention  that\t the
\naforesaid are  the grounds mentioned in the blanket order of
\ntermination.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Was the procedure mentioned in OM of 3rd December, 1980
\nrequired to be followed?\n<\/p>\n
     The thrust\t of Shri  Shanti Bhushan’s  argument in this
\nregard\tis   that  regularisation   of\tan  ad-hoc\/temporary
\nemployee is  a constitutionally\t protected right, as pointed
\nout by\tthis Court  in Dharwad’s  case, 1990  (2)  SCC\t396.
\nTherefore, this\t right should  not be  hedged with  any such
\nprocedure which should defeat it.\n<\/p>\n
14.  This submission  calls for\t an examination\t of the\t law
\nrelating to  regularisation, as\t spelt out  by this court in
\nits  various  decisions.  There\t is  no\t need  to  refer  to
\ndifferent pronouncements  on this  point inasmuch as the law
\ncame to\t be summed up by a 3-Judge bench in State of Haryana
\nvs. Piara  Singh and  others<\/a>, 1992  (4) SCC 118. Indeed, the
\nlearned counsel of both the sides sought to rely on what has
\nbeen  stated   in  this\t  decision  in\t support  of   their
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The Piara Singh Bench after referring to a large number
\nof earlier  decisions on the point, which include Dharward’s
\ncase, summarised  the law  in paragraphs 45 to 53 which read
\nas below:\n<\/p>\n
     “45. The  normal  rule,  of  course,  is
\n     regular\trecruitment    through\t  the
\n     prescribed\t agency\t  but  exigencies  of
\n     administration may sometimes call for an
\n     ad hoc  or temporary  appointment to  be
\n     made. In such a situation, effort should
\n     always  be\t  to  replace\tsuch  an   ad
\n     hoc\/temporary employee  by\t a  regularly
\n     selected employee\tas early as possible.
\n     Such  a   temporary  employee  may\t also
\n     compete  along   with  others  for\t such
\n     regular selection\/\t appointment.  If  he
\n     gets selected,  well and good, but if he
\n     does  not,\t he  must  give\t way  to  the
\n     regularly\t selected    candidate.\t  The
\n     appointment of  the  regularly  selected
\n     candidate cannot  be withheld or kept in
\n     abeyance for  the sake  of\t such  an  ad
\n     hoc\/temporary employee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     46.  Secondly, an\tad hoc\tor  temporary
\n     employee  should\tnot  be\t replaced  by
\n     another ad hoc or temporary employee; he
\n     must  be\treplaced  only\tby  regularly
\n     selected employee.\t This is necessary to
\n     avoid arbitrary  action on\t the part  of
\n     the appointing authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     47.  Thirdly, even\t where an  ad hoc  or
\n     temporary employment  is necessitated on
\n     account\tof    the    exigencies\t   of
\n     administration, he\t should ordinarily be
\n     drawn  from   the\temployment   exchange
\n     unless it\tcannot brook  delay in\twhich
\n     case the  pressing cause  must be stated
\n     on\t the   file.  If   no  candidate   is
\n     available or  is not  sponsored  by  the
\n     employment\t exchange,  some  appropriate
\n     method consistent\twith the requirements
\n     of Article\t 16 should  be\tfollowed.  In
\n     other words,  there  must\tbe  a  notice
\n     published\tin   the  appropriate  manner
\n     calling for  applications and  all those
\n     who apply\tin response thereto should be
\n     considered fairly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     48.  An unqualified  person ought\tto be
\n     appointed only  when  qualified  persons
\n     are  not  available  through  the\tabove
\n     processes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     49.  If for  any reason,  an ad  hoc  or
\n     temporary employee\t is continued  for  a
\n     fairly long  spell, the authorities must
\n     consider  his  case  for  regularisation
\n     provided he  is eligible  and  qualified
\n     according to  the rules  and his service
\n     record   is    satisfactory   and\t  his
\n     appointment does  not run counter to the
\n     reservation policy of the State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     50.  The proper  course  would  be\t that
\n     each State\t prepares a scheme, if one is
\n     not already in vogue, for regularisation
\n     of such  employees consistent  with  its
\n     reservation policy\t and if\t a scheme  is
\n     already framed,  the same\tmay  be\t made
\n     consistent with  our observations herein
\n     so as  to reduce avoidable litigation in
\n     this behalf.  If and when such person is
\n     regularised   he\t should\t  be   placed
\n     immediately  below\t the  last  regularly
\n     appointed\temployee  in  that  category,
\n     class or service, as the case may be.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     51.  So   far    as   the\t work-charged
\n     employees\t and\tcasual\t labour\t  are
\n     concerned,\t the   effort  must   be   to
\n     regularise them  as far  as possible and
\n     as early  as possible  subject to\ttheir
\n     fulfilling the  qualifications, if\t any,
\n     prescribed for the post and subject also
\n     to availability  of work.\tIf  a  casual
\n     labourer is  continued for a fairly long
\n     spell-say\ttwo   or  three\t  years\t –  a
\n     presumption  may  arise  that  there  is
\n     regular need  for his service. In such a
\n     situation, it becomes obligatory for the
\n     authority\tconcerned   to\texamine\t  the
\n     feasibility of his regularisation. While
\n     doing so, the authorities ought to adopt
\n     a\tpositive  approach  coupled  with  an
\n     empathy for  the  person.\tAs  has\t been
\n     repeatedly\t stressed   by\tthis   Court,
\n     security of  tenure is  necessary for an
\n     employee to give his best to the job. In
\n     this behalf, we do commend the orders of
\n     Government of  Haryana (contained in its
\n     letter dated  April 6,  1990 referred to
\n     hereinbefore) both\t in relation to work-
\n     charged  employees\t as  well  as  casual
\n     labour.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     52.  We must  also say  that the  orders
\n     issued by\tthe Governments of Punjab and
\n     Haryana providing\tfor regularisation of
\n     ad hoc\/temporary  employees who have put
\n     in two  years\/one year  of\t service  are
\n     quite generous and leave no room for any
\n     legitimate grievance by any one.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     53.  These are  but a  few\t observations
\n     which we  thought it  necessary to make,
\n     impelled by  the facts of this case, and
\n     the  spate\t  of   litigation   by\t such
\n     employees. they  are not  exhaustive nor
\n     can they  be  understood  as  immutable.
\n     Each  Government  or  authority  has  to
\n     devise its\t own criteria  or  principles
\n     for regularisation\t having regard to all
\n     the relevant  circumstances,  but\twhile
\n     doing so,\tit should  bear in  mind  the
\n     observations made herein.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.  The only other case which I propose to note, in view of
\nstrong reliance\t on it\tby Shri\t Verma, is Delhi Development
\nHorticulture Employees\tUnion vs  Delhi Administration,<\/a> 1992
\n(4) SCC\t 99. Shri  Verma drew  my attention  to the  general
\nobservations made by the Bench in para 23 in which a mention
\nwas made  about the  common practice  to  ignore  employment
\nexchanges and  to employ  and get  employed persons  who are
\neither not  registered with  the employment exchange or who,
\nthough registered,  are lower  in the  waiting list  in\t the
\nemployment register.  The Bench\t stated that such employment
\nis sought  and given  for  “various  illegal  considerations
\nincluding money”.  The motivating  force to  do so is to get
\nthe benefit  of regularisation\tafter one  has continued  to
\nwork for  240 days or more, knowing about the judicial trend
\nthat those  who have completed 240 days or more are directed
\nto be  automatically regularised.  It was also observed that
\nthis has  led  to  development\tof  “good  deal\t of  illegal
\nemployment market  resulting in\t a new\tsource of corruption
\nand frustration\t of those  who are waiting in the employment
\nexchange for years”.\n<\/p>\n
17.  I would examine the question relating to regularisation
\nof the appellants keeping the aforesaid in mind. Shri Shanti
\nBhushan submits\t that what  was stated\tin paragraph  11  of
\nDharward’s case\t about regularisation  within  a  reasonable
\nperiod being  a constitutional\tgoal has  been\taccepted  in
\nPiara Singh’s  case also  inasmuch  as\tit  has\t been  state
\nparagraph 51  that security  of tenure\tis  necessary  which
\nrequires adoption  of positive approach coupled with empathy
\nfor the\t person, because of which the view taken was that if
\na casual labourer continued for a fairly long spell-say 2 or
\n3 years – a presumption may arise that there is if a regular
\nneed for  his services.\t In such  a  situation,\t it  becomes
\nobligatory  for\t the  authority\t concerned  to\texamine\t the
\nfeasibility of this regularisation.\n<\/p>\n
18.  The learned counsel further contends that it was, as if
\nto  fulfil   the  constitutional  obligation,  that  on\t the
\nquestion of  regularisation of employees like the appellants
\nbeing taken  up with  the Government,  it was  stated by the
\nDirector of  Health Services  to all concerned in his letter
\nof 25.11.1982  that casual  labourers who had been appointed
\nafter 1974  and were  serving continuously  for 3  years  be
\nabsorbed against  the regularised posts. As to those working
\nfor less  than 3  years, this letter stated that they should
\nalso be absorbed against the vacant sanctioned posts. It is,
\ntherefore, urged  that no  procedure at\t all was required to
\nregularise those  who had  served for  3 years or more after
\n1974.\n<\/p>\n
19.  I would  not agree\t with Shri  Shanti Bhushan  that  no
\nprocedure at all was required to be followed, in view of the
\nlaw as\tmentioned in Piara Singh’s case, according to which,
\nthe adhoc\/temporary  employees have  also to  get  selected,
\nalong with  others, to\tget  regularised,  which  apparently
\nmeans that  they must  undergo a selection process which has
\nto be  according to  a settled\tprocedure. And the procedure
\nfor the\t cases at hand is the one mentioned in the aforesaid
\nOM. It is, therefore, to be seen whether there are materials
\nto show\t qua the  appellants that the procedure mentioned in
\nthe O.M. of 3rd December was not followed while regularising
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
20   As to  this facet\tof the case, Shri Shanti Bhushan has
\nsought to  rely\t strongly  on  the  statement  made  by\t the
\nconcerned Minister  on the  floor of  the  Assembly  on\t two
\noccasions. The\tfirst was on 14.7.1987, when in reply to the
\nquestion “(w)hether  it is a fact that from the year 1985 to
\nMarch, 87  about 200 persons were appointed in Class III and
\nIV posts  in different TB Institutes by the Incharge, Deputy
\nDirector, TB, without publication of interview. If yes, does
\nthe Government\tpropose to  make an  inquiry into  this ? If
\nyes, why  has it not been made till date ?”, Minister Health
\nand Family  Welfare Department\tstated that the appointments
\nwere  made   “after  following\t all  procedure”  which\t was
\ncontained in  letters dated 17.2.1983, 25.3.1983, 24.7.1984,
\n17.10.1984, 31.12.1986\tand 31.1.1987. The matter again came
\nbefore\tthe  Assembly  on  21.1.1987,  when  another  M.L.A.
\ndesired to  know from  the Minister  of\t Health\t and  Family
\nWelfare whether\t about\t800  employees\thad  been  appointed
\nagainst different  class III  and IV  posts illegally by the
\nDirector, TB,  Dr. A.  Mallik, between\t1977 and  1987.\t The
\nfurther question  was if  this were  to be a fact, “does the
\nGovernment propose to hold an inquiry against Dr. Mallik for
\nMaking illegal\tappointments  and  illegal  accumulation  of
\nwealth. If  not, why  ?” The  reply of the Minister was that
\nappointment had been made “in regular manner against created
\nsanctioned vacant posts.”. The Minister further stated that,
\ntherefore,  “question\tof  illegal  appointments  does\t not
\narise”.\n<\/p>\n
21.  Shri Verma\t would not like us to place much reliance on
\nwhat was  stated on  the floor\tof the Assembly, because the
\nquestions had  been answered, as per the State’s case put up
\nin  counter-affidavit\tfiled  here,   on  the\t information
\nfurnished  by  Dr.  A.A.  Mallik  himself.  However,  as  on
\nsubsequent  inquiry  it\t was  found  that  all\tinformations
\nfurnished by  Dr. Mallik  were false,  a fresh communication
\nwas addressed by the Department to the Assembly.\n<\/p>\n
22.  I would  not accept  this stance  taken in the counter-
\naffidavit for  various reasons.\t The first  is\tthat  it  is
\nbeyond comprehension  that a  question relating\t to  alleged
\nillegal activities  of Dr.  Mallik would  be answered  by  a
\nMinister on  the floor\tof House on the basis of information
\nsupplied  by  none  else  than\tDr.  Mallik.  Secondly,\t the
\ncounter-affidavit has  been sworn  on behalf of the State by
\nDirector  (Administration,   Health  Services,\t whereas  an
\naffidavit on  behalf of\t the State  is to  be  sworn  by  an
\nofficer of  the Secretariat.  Thirdly, there  is nothing  on
\nrecord to  satisfy that\t the fresh  information collected on
\nsubsequent  inquiry   had  really   been  furnished  by\t the
\nDepartment to the Assembly.\n<\/p>\n
23.  The aforesaid  contention of  Shri Shanti\tBhushan\t was
\nbuttressed  by\tother  learned\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellants by  drawing by  attention, inter  alia, to a writ
\nproceeding before the Patna High Court which shows that on a
\ndirection being\t given by  the Court  to  pay  to  the\twrit
\npetitioners in\tquestion  their\t wages,\t if  they  had\tbeen
\nregularly appointed,  the High\tCourt was  informed that, on
\nenquiry being  made, it\t was found that the writ petitioners
\nhad been regularly appointed.\n<\/p>\n
24.  There are\talso on\t record of  some  cases\t minutes  of
\nSelection Committee  consisting of  Deputy Director,  Health
\nService (TB),  Assistant Director  (Philoria  Control);\t and
\nSenior-most SC\/ST  officer working  under the  TB programme.
\nThis is the composition of the Selection Committee meant for
\nmaking regular\tappointments to\t class III  & IV posts under
\nTuberculosis Control  Programme, as  would appear  from\t the
\nGovernment communication  of 25.3.1983,\t which is one of the
\nletters mentioned  by the  Minister  on\t 14.7.1987  when  he
\nanswered the  Assembly question.  It is, of course, true, as
\npointed out  by Shri  Verma, that in the papers as filed, at
\nthe place  of signatures  “Sd\/-” appears. The explanation of
\nthe concerned  counsel is that this had happened because the
\nsignatures of  the concerned  person were not legible. It is
\nalso urged that the appellants, having had no custody of the
\noriginal records,  could lay  their hands  on a\t document of
\nthis nature  only. The\toriginal of  the document  not being
\navailable to  us, which may be because of the burning of all
\nrecords\t in   the  fire\t  which\t took  place  in  the  State
\nSecretariat, it\t cannot be  held that  the concerned persons
\nwere regularised  after proper\tselection. But then, in some
\ncases Selection\t Committee did\texamine the  candidature  of
\nconcerned persons  and\tthey  had  come\t to  be\t regularised
\npursuant to the recommendation of the selection committee.\n<\/p>\n
25.  In the  aforesaid permises,  i  would  not\t accept\t the
\ncontention  advanced   on  behalf  of  the  State  that\t the
\nprocedure visualised  by the  O.M. of 3rd December, 1980 was
\nnot followed  at all  while regularising  the appellants. Of
\ncourse, the  materials on  record do  not permit to say that
\nthe  procedure\t had  been  followed  in  case\tof  all\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
26.  Whether non-advertisement\tof the\tposts introduced any
\ninfirmity?\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Shanti Bhushan contends that as per the law summed
\nup in  Piara Singh’s case, advertisement is not a must. Shri
\nVerma,\tsubmits\t  that\tunless\tthe  posts  are\t advertised,
\neligible persons  would not  know about\t the availability of
\npost, and  so, it  has to  be there.  Para 47 of Piara Singh
\nmakes this  position clear,  as it states that a notice must
\nbe published  in this  regard in  appropriate  manner.\tThis
\npublication could be, in appropriate cases, on notice boards
\nalso, according to me.\n<\/p>\n
27.  The aforesaid  being the position, I am statisfied that
\nthe posts  were required to be advertised. This, however, is
\nan ordinary  requirement, which\t would be  apparent from the
\nword “ordinarily”  finding place  in para 47. This apart, it
\nwould appear that the news was published on the notice board
\nof some\t offices. I  would accept  this as sufficient in the
\nfacts and  circumstances  of  the  present  case.  The\tnon-
\nadvertisement of  the posts  in newspapers  had,  therefore,
\ncaused no infirmity to the regularisation.\n<\/p>\n
28.  Whether non-information  to the employment exchange for
\nfilling up the posts caused any dent to the appointments ?\n<\/p>\n
     Para 47  of Piara\tSingh’s case states that where an ad
\nhoc or\ttemporary employment  is necessitated  on account of
\nexigency of  administration, the  incumbent should  be drawn
\nfrom the  employment exchange.\tThis requirement has a rider
\nnamely, “unless\t it cannot  brook delay”. As already stated,
\nthere was  a pressing cause here, which is almost writ large
\non the\tface of\t the  record.  The  non-information  to\t the
\nemployment exchange  had, therefore,  caused no\t dent to the
\nappointments.\n<\/p>\n
29.  Was  there\t  non-reservation  of  posts  for  Scheduled
\nCastes\/Scheduled Tribes?  If so, whether the same introduced
\nany  legality\tin  the\t  appointment  of  general  category
\ncandidates ?\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tas unfolded in the present appeals show that
\nposts had  in fact  been reserved.  In\tone  TB\t Centre,  16
\nScheduled Castes,  5 Scheduled Tribes, 16 Backward I, and 14
\nbackward II  came to  be appointed,  along with\t 16  general
\ncategory candidates. This tabulation is at page 143 of paper
\nbook in\t SLP(C) Nos.12934-35 of 1994. A perusal of the paper
\nbook in\t SLP(C) Nos.13203-13  of 1994  shows that  Scheduled
\nCastes\/Scheduled Tribes\t candidates were  appointed  to\t the
\nposts of  B.C.G. Technicians. The annexure at Page 116 gives
\nthe names  of such  candidates, and the list at pages 117 to
\n119 shows that there were many Backward Class I and Backward
\nClass II appointees also. This shows that there was not only
\nreservation for\t Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes but
\nappointments too  had been given. That this was the position
\nin all\tthe centres  cannot, however, be known from material
\non record.  The appellants’  counsel are justified in saying
\nthat they  could not  have produced  documents to show as to
\nhow this  requirement was  satisfied in all the centres. The
\nburden of  proving this conclusively cannot be thrown on the
\nappellants,  as\t  after\t all  it  is  the  State  which\t had
\nterminated their  services, inter  alia, on this ground, and
\nso, the\t burden has really to be discharged by the State, to
\ndo which virtually nothing has been done, may be because the
\nSecretariat records having been burnt, nothing is available.
\nIt may,\t however, be  that the\tDistrict Records  could have
\nperhaps thrown some light, but they were shown no light.\n<\/p>\n
30.  The materials  available show there was reservation for
\nSC\/ST candidates.  The question of illegality in appointment
\nof general  candidates on the ground of non reservation does
\nnot, therefore, arise.\n<\/p>\n
31.  Whether the  regularisation had  been made\t pursuant to
\nrecommendation of  the Selection Committee visualised by the
\naforesaid OM ?\n<\/p>\n
     This aspect has already been dealt above. To reiterate,
\nthere are  materials on\t record to  show that  in some cases
\nregularisation was  pursuant  to  the  recommendation  of  a
\nproperly constituted  Selection Committee.  I  am  conscious
\nthat one  swallow does\tnot make a summer. But then, to have
\nrequired the  appellants to  bring on record the proceedings
\nof other Selection Committees, if there were any, would have
\nplaced an  unjustified burden  on them. What has been stated
\nabove about  the State’s  burden applies  qua this  question
\nalso.\n<\/p>\n
32.  Whether non-preparation  of any  panel by the Selection
\nCommittee provided  a good ground to regard the appointments
\nas violative of the prescribed procedure?\n<\/p>\n
     A perusal\tof the\tO.M. of 3rd December, 1980 does show
\nthat the Selection Committee was required to prepare a merit
\nlist. That  such a  merit list\/panel  was prepared  in\tsome
\ncases would  be evident\t from a perusal of the paper book in
\nSLP(C) Nos.  13203-13 of  1994. But  then, it cannot be said
\nthat this  was done  in all  cases. Even so, for the reasons
\nalready alluded\t which would  apply proprio  vigore to\tthis
\naspect also,  there is no justification in finding infirmity
\nin all\tthe appointments  because of  lack of  materials  on
\nrecord to  show that  the appointments had been made without
\npreparation of merit list\/panel.\n<\/p>\n
33.  Whether natural  justice had  been complied with before
\ntermination of the services of the appellants?\n<\/p>\n
     What are the requirements of the natural justice cannot
\nbe laid\t down in any straight jacket. This is a well settled
\nposition in  law. The facts and circumstances of the case in
\nquestion would\talone provide  the  answer  whether  natural
\njustice has  been complied  with or  not. This\tis  so\twell
\nsettled position  by now  that I do not propose to advert to
\nany case law on this subject.\n<\/p>\n
34.  It is  equally well  settled that\twhere adverse  civil
\nconsequences follow  pursuant to  an order  of an authority,
\nnatural justice\t has to\t be complied  with ordinarily.\tLaw,
\nhowever, permits exclusion of natural justice in some cases,
\nlike urgency.  Shri Verma  submits that\t present is  a\tcase
\nwhere natural  justice got  excluded because  of adoption of
\nunfair means  while seeking  appoints. In  support  of\tthis
\ncontention, strong  reliance is\t placed on  the decision  of
\nthis court  in Bihar  School Examination  Board vs.  Subhash
\nChandra Sinha  and others<\/a>,  1970 (3)  SCR 963.\tAccording to
\nShri Shanti  Bhushan, this  decision has  not said  anything
\ncontrary to  the well  settled principle  that where adverse
\ncivil consequences follow natural justice has to be complied
\nwith.\n<\/p>\n
35.  Let it  be seen  which  of\t the  aforesaid\t contentions
\nmerits acceptance. In the aforesaid case this Court examined
\nthe question whether notice to the respondents was necessary
\nbefore cancellation of their examination because of adoption
\nof unfair  means at  an examination  centre. The question of
\ngiving notice required examination, as it was contended that
\nnatural justice required the same. On the facts of that case
\nit was\theld that  notice was  snot necessary. This view was
\ntaken because  the Court  was satisfied\t about\tadoption  of
\nunfair means,  relating to  which an independent enquiry had
\nbeen held  by Unfair Means Committee of the appellant Board.
\nShri Verma  states that\t as in\tthe present  case  also\t the
\nappellant has  adopted unfair  means, no notice was required
\nto be given.\n<\/p>\n
36.  A close perusal of the judgment shows that that was not
\na case\tof any\tparticular  individual\tbeing  charged\twith
\nadoption of  unfair means,  but of  the conduct\t of all\t the
\nexaminees or a vast majority of them at a particular centre.
\nThe Court  raised a  poser that\t as the\t question was not of
\ncharging any one individual with unfair means but to condemn
\nthe examination\t as ineffective for the purpose it was held,
\nmust  the  Board  have\tgiven  an  opportunity\tto  all\t the
\ncandidates to  represent their\tcases? The  Court thought it
\nwas not\t necessary, because  the examination  as a whole was
\nbeing cancelled.  It was  further observed that as the Board
\nhad not\t charged any  one with unfair means so that he could
\nclaim to  defend himself.  It was, therefore, concluded that
\nit would  be wrong  to insist  that the\t Board must  hold  a
\ndetailed enquiry  into the  matter and\texamine each case to
\nsatisfy itself\twhich of  the  candidates  had\tnot  adopted
\nunfair means.\n<\/p>\n
37.  The facts of the present case are poles apart. Here the
\nallegation is undoubtedly against each appellant. Even if it
\nwere to\t be that  some among  them had adopted unfair means,
\nthe appointments of others could not be set aside because of
\nthat. It  was not  a question  of  some\t illegality  of\t the
\ngeneral\t nature\t like  adoption\t of  a\twrong  procedure  in
\nselection, like\t fixing of  very high  percentage marks\t for
\nviva voce.  It may  be that  a case where such illegality is
\ncommitted, individual  notice would  not  be  necessary.  I,
\ntherefore, do  not think  if the  ratio in Subhash Chandra’s
\ncase could  assist the\tState  to  contend  that  individual
\nnotice was not necessary.\n<\/p>\n
38.  I may  deal with  another decision pressed into service
\nby  Shri   Verma  in   this  context.\tThe  same   is\tS.K.
\nBalasubramanian vs.  State of  Tamilnadu, 1991\t(2) SCC 708.
\nThe learned  counsel has  read out  to me from this decision
\nparagraph 9  at pages 713 and 714 and contended that because
\nwhat has  been stated therein, it could be said that even if
\nan order is invalid, there would be no question of affording
\nan opportunity\tof hearing.  I am  afraid that\tthe  learned
\ncounsel has  misunderstood the\tpurport\t of  what  has\tbeen
\nstated therein.\t I have\t said so  because a  perusal of that
\npara shows  that this  Court had  said about  no question of
\naffording an  opportunity  of  hearing\tto  the\t petitioners
\nbefore passing\tthe impugned  order  dated  March  3,  1980,
\nbecause the  Court found  that that  order  was\t founded  on
\nGovernment orders dated November 16, 1976 and June 15, 1977,
\nwhich were  invalid according  to the  Court as those orders
\nhad altered the principle of fixation of seniority contained
\nin Rule\t 35 of the General Rules, which could have been done
\nonly by\t suitably amending  the Rule,  and  not\t by  issuing
\nadministrative instructions.  Having found that the order in
\nfavour of the petitioners dated March 3, 1980 was founded on
\nuntenable principle  of fixation  of  seniority,  the  court
\nsaid, and  with respect\t rightly, that\tno  opportunity\t was
\nrequired to  be given  to  the\tpetitioners  who  sought  to
\nsupport\t their\tseniority  position  on\t the  principles  as
\nembodied in  the Orders dated November 16, 1976 and June 15,
\n1977. the foundation of the order dated March 3, 1980 having
\nfallen to  the ground,\tno opportunity\twas necessary  to be
\ngiven to  sustain the  order dated  March 3,  1980, as\tthat
\norder was  founded on  wrong principles\t of seniority.\tThis
\nbeing the  position, I\twould indeed say that Shri Verma may
\nnot have advanced this contention.\n<\/p>\n
39.  Having held  that natural justice was not excluded, let
\nit be  known what  was done  to satisfy\t this in the present
\ncases. Materials  on record  show that\tat first attempt was
\nmade to\t service individual  notices, whereupon\t the serving
\npersons were  even mis-handled;\t so, recourse  was taken  to
\nnewspaper publication.\tThis was  done in  some Hindi  local
\nnewspapers. It\tis on  record that pursuant to the notice so
\ngiven good  number of  persons likely  to  be  affected\t had
\nappeared before the aforesaid Committee. It may be that some
\npersons did  not  appear  before  the  screening  committee,
\ndespite knowledge of the same. From the materials on record,
\nwe are not in a position to know what is the total number of
\nsuch persons.\n<\/p>\n
40.  To satisfy\t whether newspaper publication substantially
\ncomplied with  the requirement\tof natural  justice, we\t had
\ndesired to know from Shri Verma which were these newspapers,
\nwhat  was   their  circulation\t and  at  which\t places\t the
\nnewspapers had\tcirculation. Shri  Verma could not throw any
\nlight on  these aspects.  His contention was that as some of
\nthe affected persons had known about the publication, we may
\npresume that  they must\t have informed their colleagues, and
\nthe news must have spread like a wild fire. I would demur to
\naccept these  contentions. It  has also been noted that some
\nof the\tincumbents had\tread only upto Class IV, which would
\nshow that  they are  not literate  and enlightened enough to
\nread newspapers as a habit.\n<\/p>\n
41.  So,  despite   my\tbeing  satisfied  that\ta  case\t for
\nnewspaper publication  was made out, as on effort being made
\nto serve  individual  notices,\tthere  was  non-handling  of
\nserving persons,  the publication of the type undertaken did
\nnot, however,  satisfy the  call of  natural justice.  As no
\nfetish should  be made\tabout natural justice, it should not
\nbe allowed  to become  farce also. The giving of opportunity
\nto show-cause  in the  present cases  having been made known
\nthrough newspapers,  I do  think that  the opportunity given
\nwas not\t adequate and  reasonable. Even\t so, I have not felt
\ninclined to  set aside the termination order on this ground,
\nas we  ourselves heard the appellants, which can be taken as
\na sort\tof post-decisional  opportunity, which could be said
\nto have met the requirement of natural justice.
\nCONCLUSION\n<\/p>\n
42.  Having expressed  my views\t on the questions of law and
\nfact I would conclude as below.\n<\/p>\n
43.  Broadly stated,  the position  is that  Dr. Mallik\t had
\nundoubtedly out-stepped\t confines  of  his  powers  and\t had
\nbetrayed the  confidence reposed  in him.  I  have  said  so
\nbecause it  is clear  that as  against about 2500 sanctioned
\npostes, he was instrumental in giving\/directing appointments
\nto about  6000 persons.\t But I\tam clear in my mind that all
\nthe persons so employed had not aided, abetted or instigated
\nDr. Mallik in doing so. The difficulty is that we are not in
\na position  to find out who the aiders\/abetters were. If the
\nState could  have made\tefforts to  find this  aspect,\twith
\nreference to the records which should have been available at
\nthe District  Headquarters\/TB Centres,\tit should  have been
\npossible to  find out,\twho among  the 6000 and odd persons,
\nhad been  legally or  validly appointed.  This has, however,
\nnot been  done. The  question is  whether despite  this\t in-
\naction or  non-action, there  is justification in taking the
\nview that the 1363 appellants before us were among those who
\nwere illegally\tappointed. The State counsel submits that we
\nshould hold  so; Shri  Shanti Bhushan contends that there is
\nno basis to hold so.\n<\/p>\n
44.  I\thave  given  my\t considered  thought  to  this\tall-
\nimportant aspect  of the case and, according to me, as about
\n2500 persons could have been appointed by Dr. Mallik, and as
\nthere  are   materials\ton   record  to\t show  that  regular
\nappointments had  also been  made (how many, we do not know)
\nand as\tit  is\tnot  possible  to  know\t who  the  regularly
\nappointed  persons  were,  facts  permit  to  say  that\t the
\nappellants before  us, whose  number is\t 1363, may  be among
\nthose who were regularly appointed. I have thought it fit to
\ntake this  view because\t of the mandate in Article 21 of the
\nConstitution, which  would not permit taking away livelihood
\nof so many of the incumbents unless satisfied that they were
\namong the  persons who\thad not\t been  legally\tand  validly
\nappointed. It  deserves to  be pointed out that as the State
\nhas taken  away the  rights which  had come to inhere in the
\nappellants, the\t primary burden is on the State to establish
\nthat illegality had been committed in giving appointments to
\nthe appellants. This burden the State has undoubtedly failed
\nto discharge qua the appellants. The benefit of the same has
\nto be made available to them.\n<\/p>\n
45.  I would  further say  that in  such  matters  there  is
\n(some) justification  to keep  human consideration  also  in
\nmind, as  urged by  Shri Shanti Bhushan by referring to H.C.
\nPuttaswamy vs.\tHon’ble the  Chief Justice,  Karnataka\tHigh
\nCourt,<\/a> 190  (Supp) 2  SCR 552.\tIn  that  case\tthis  Court,
\ndespite having regarded the impugned appointment as invalid,
\nrefused\t to  recognise\tthe  consequence  which\t would\thave
\ninvolved uprooting  of the  appellants, because\t of which it
\nadopted a  humanitarian approach,  as it  was felt  that the
\nappellants “seem  to deserve  justice ruled  by mercy”.\t Not
\nonly this,  the Court  went to\tthe extent of giving all the
\nbenefits of  past service  after stating that the appellants
\nshall be  treated to  have  been  regularly  appointed.\t The
\nlearned counsel\t prays that  we may  view the  cases at hand
\nalso similarly,\t as any\t adverse  order\t would\tuproot\t1363
\nfamilies inasmuch  as virtually\t all the appellants are from
\npoorer section\tof the\tsociety and  it may well be that the
\nconcerned families  have no  other bread-earner. I have felt
\ninclined  to   bear  this   aspect  also   in  mind,  albeit
\ntangentially. Having  noted that  materials on record do not
\npermit to hold that the appellants were among those who were
\nappointed beyond the sanctioned strength, my conscience does
\nnot permit  to punish  them for the wrong or sin which might
\nhave been committed by others.\n<\/p>\n
46.  According to  me, therefore,  the legal, just, fair and
\nreasonable order  to be\t passed in these appeals would be to
\nsay that  all the  1363 appellants  would be  deemed to have
\nbeen regularly\tappointed and  I would, therefore, set aside
\nthe termination\t order qua  them. It is made clear that this
\norder would  not in any way be taken advantage of by anybody
\nexcept 1363 appellants before us.\n<\/p>\n
47.  The appeals  are, therefore,  allowed by  setting aside
\nthe termination order qua the appellants alone and directing
\nthe reinstatement  of all  them. Appropriate  orders in this
\nregard would  be passed\t within two  months from  today. The
\nappellants would  not, however,\t be paid  any amount towards
\nback  wages\/salaries,  but  they  would\t get  other  service
\nbenefits.\n<\/p>\n
48.  Before parting,  I would observe that nothing stated by
\nme relating  to the appellants would enure to the benefit of
\nDr. Mallik  in the on going inquiry against him. It would be
\nconcluded as  per the materials collected or to be collected
\nand the\t inquiry against  him would take its own course. Not
\nonly this,  I would  desire the\t conclusion of\tthe  inquiry
\nagainst Dr. Mallik most expeditiously.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995 Equivalent citations: JT 1995 (8), 563 1995 SCALE (6)779 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/11\/1995 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAshwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-14T02:51:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-14T02:51:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995\"},\"wordCount\":6928,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995\",\"name\":\"Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-14T02:51:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-14T02:51:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995","datePublished":"1995-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-14T02:51:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995"},"wordCount":6928,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995","name":"Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-14T02:51:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwani-kumar-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-16-november-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 November, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=189919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189919\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}