Supreme Court Upholds Bihar Government’s Decision on Illegal Health Department Appointments

The issue of illegal appointments in government services has long been a contentious matter in India. The Supreme Court, in a recent landmark judgment, upheld the Bihar government’s decision to terminate the services of several employees in the Health Department who had been recruited through irregular means. This case, involving the State of Bihar and numerous affected employees, highlights the importance of fair recruitment processes and adherence to constitutional principles in public employment.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the Bihar government undertook a review of appointments in its Health Department, particularly for Class III and Class IV employees. The government found that a significant number of employees had been recruited without proper authorization, some through forged documents, and many without sanctioned posts. This led to mass terminations, which were subsequently challenged by the affected employees before the Patna High Court.

The High Court, in various orders, ruled in favor of the employees, citing procedural lapses in the termination process. The Bihar government, dissatisfied with these rulings, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appointments were illegal from the outset and could not be regularized.

Arguments of the Petitioner (State of Bihar)

The State of Bihar argued that the appointments were made in violation of the principles of fair recruitment, as required under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The government contended that many appointments were secured through forged appointment letters, false nursing registration certificates, and unauthorized approvals by officials who lacked the power to recruit.
The Bihar government relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), which categorically held that irregular and illegal appointments cannot be regularized.
It was further argued that a large number of employees had been recruited without sanctioned posts, making their employment legally untenable.
The government pointed out that a committee was formed to investigate these appointments, and after due process, it was established that most appointments were made fraudulently.

Arguments of the Respondents (Terminated Employees)

The affected employees contended that they had been working in government service for decades and had developed a legitimate expectation of continued employment.
They argued that they were never given an opportunity to be heard before their termination, thus violating principles of natural justice.
The respondents further claimed that similar cases had been regularized in the past, and denying them the same relief would be discriminatory.
They pointed out that their termination orders were based on the findings of a committee that did not follow due process.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, delivered a detailed judgment analyzing the legality of the appointments and the validity of the Bihar government’s termination orders.

The Court ruled that appointments made without following proper recruitment processes are void ab initio and do not confer any legal rights upon the appointees.
It noted that public employment must be based on merit and follow a transparent, competitive process to ensure fairness and equal opportunity.
The Court remarked, “The whole exercise remained in the realm of an unauthorized adventure. Nothing could come out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit.”
On the issue of natural justice, the Court held that the employees had been given ample opportunity to present their case before the investigating committee. Their inability to prove the legality of their appointments justified the terminations.
The judgment also relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar, which addressed similar issues in Bihar’s Health Department and ruled that backdoor appointments could not be regularized.
The Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), stating that government jobs should not be granted arbitrarily or through fraudulent means.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

This ruling has several critical implications for government recruitment processes and employment policies:

Public employment must strictly adhere to constitutional principles and established recruitment rules.
Appointments made without sanctioned posts or through fraudulent means do not bestow legal rights upon the appointees.
The passage of time does not validate an illegal appointment.
Governments have the right to review past appointments and take corrective actions to ensure that only eligible candidates hold public positions.
The principle of natural justice does not require a full-fledged inquiry if the appointments were made illegally from the outset.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that public employment must be based on merit and transparency. The ruling serves as a strong deterrent against backdoor appointments and ensures that government jobs are not distributed arbitrarily or through fraudulent means. By upholding the Bihar government’s decision, the Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of fairness and integrity in public sector recruitment.

For thousands of government job aspirants, this judgment is a reminder that recruitment must be conducted strictly in accordance with the law. Any deviation from this principle not only jeopardizes the careers of those unlawfully appointed but also undermines the credibility of public administration.

Petitioner Name: State of Bihar.
Respondent Name: Devendra Sharma & Others.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 17-10-2019.

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

Download Judgment: State of Bihar vs Devendra Sharma & Ot Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-10-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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