Supreme Court Rules on Illegal Appointments: Bihar Government’s Action Upheld

The Supreme Court of India, in its ruling in The State of Bihar & Others vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad & Others, addressed the issue of irregular and illegal appointments made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer in Bihar. The judgment clarified the application of the Umadevi (3) ruling and the right to regularization of employees who had been working for years without a valid recruitment process.

Background of the Case

The case arose when numerous employees, who were appointed in Class III and Class IV government service in Bihar, were later dismissed due to irregularities in their recruitment. The State of Bihar found that these appointments were made without following proper recruitment procedures, often based on forged or unauthorized appointment orders. The affected employees challenged their dismissal in the Patna High Court, which ruled in their favor, directing their reinstatement.

The State of Bihar, aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, appealed before the Supreme Court, arguing that these appointments were illegal and void ab initio, and the affected employees had no right to regularization.

Legal Issues

• Whether the appointments made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer were legal and valid.
• Whether employees who had worked for several years were entitled to regularization under the Umadevi (3) and M.L. Kesari rulings.
• Whether the Patna High Court erred in directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The State of Bihar contended:

• The appointments were made without any proper selection process, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
• Many of the employees were found to have secured jobs using forged appointment letters.
• The Constitution Bench ruling in Umadevi (3) stated that irregular appointees could only be regularized if they had been recruited through a sanctioned process, which was not the case here.
• The Patna High Court erred in granting relief to employees whose appointments were illegal from the outset.

Respondent’s Arguments

The dismissed employees argued:

• They had been working for more than a decade and had gained experience and expertise in their jobs.
• The government had failed to take action for years, allowing them to continue in service.
• The principles laid down in M.L. Kesari required that employees who had been in service for 10 years without judicial orders protecting them should be regularized.
• The termination orders were arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the recruitment records and found that:

• Most of the appointments were made without advertising vacancies or following competitive selection procedures.
• Several appointments were made based on forged or unauthorized documents.
• The employees were never selected through a constitutionally valid recruitment process.

The Court reaffirmed its previous rulings in Umadevi (3) and M.L. Kesari, stating:

“The principle of regularization applies only to employees who have worked for 10 years or more on duly sanctioned posts and were appointed through a valid selection process. Those appointed illegally cannot claim regularization as a matter of right.”

Regarding the High Court’s order directing reinstatement, the Supreme Court observed:

“The High Court erred in directing the reinstatement of employees whose appointments were void ab initio. Such appointments never had any legal sanctity and cannot be regularized.”

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Bihar, thereby setting aside the High Court’s order.
• The termination of services of illegally appointed employees was upheld.
• The judgment clarified that employees recruited without proper selection cannot claim regularization.
• However, those who had been appointed irregularly (not illegally) and had worked for over a decade may seek relief in accordance with Umadevi (3).

Implications of the Judgment

• Reaffirming the Constitutional Mandate: The judgment upholds the principle that government jobs must be filled through a transparent and competitive selection process.
• Clarification on Regularization: Only those employees whose appointments were irregular (not illegal) and who meet the conditions set in Umadevi (3) are entitled to regularization.
• Impact on Public Employment: The ruling prevents backdoor entries into government service and ensures fairness in recruitment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in The State of Bihar vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad serves as a landmark decision reinforcing the rule of law in public employment. By overturning the High Court’s order, the Court has ensured that appointments made illegally cannot be regularized, thereby preventing misuse of power by government authorities. This judgment establishes a crucial precedent in service matters, ensuring transparency and accountability in recruitment.

Petitioner Name: The State of Bihar.
Respondent Name: Kirti Narayan Prasad.
Judgment By: Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Deepak Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 30-11-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The State of Bihar vs Kirti Narayan Prasad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-11-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Madan B. Lokur
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category