The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the termination orders of several Class-III employees of the District Court establishment who were removed from service in 2017 after serving for over two decades. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, held that the appointments made in 1994-1995 were, at most, “irregular” and not “illegal,” and thus could not be reopened after such a long period relying on the judgment in Mansukh Lal Saraf.
The Court directed the reinstatement of the petitioners to their respective posts with all consequential promotional and service benefits, though without back wages.
Background of the Case
The petitioners were appointed to various Class-III posts (Lower Division Clerk, Process Writer, Assistant Grade-III) in the District Court establishments in 1994 and 1995. Their appointments were made consequent to the voluntary retirement of their fathers/mothers under a scheme that allowed for the appointment of a dependent family member. The petitioners underwent a selection process, including written examinations and interviews.
However, on October 28, 2017, the respondents issued orders removing the petitioners from service. The termination was based on a scrutiny conducted in compliance with the High Court’s earlier directions in Mansukh Lal Saraf Vs. Arun Kumar Tiwari & Others (2016). The scrutiny committee concluded that the appointments were illegal as the fathers of the petitioners were not medically unfit as per the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Examination) Rules, 1972, and the appointments violated recruitment procedures.
Arguments Raised
Senior Advocate Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the appointments were made in accordance with the policy prevailing in 1995. He submitted that at the relevant time, there were no statutory recruitment rules for Class-III employees in District Courts. The counsel contended that the appointments were neither tainted by fraud nor misrepresentation and could not be termed illegal after 22 years. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006).
The respondents, represented by Advocate Shri Brajesh Nath Mishra, argued that the appointments were void ab initio as they contravened the Medical Disability Rules and the selection procedure prescribed under recruitment rules. They relied on the coordinate Bench judgment in Rakesh Dubey v. District & Session Judge, Jabalpur (2020), which had upheld similar terminations.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench conducted a detailed examination of the rules applicable during 1994-1995. The Court observed that prior to 2016, there were no statutory rules governing the appointment of employees in the District Court establishment.
Absence of Rules in 1994-95
The Court noted that the High Court’s 1984 circular gave District Judges the discretion to recruit candidates “in the usual manner.” The Bench observed:
“It was the prerogative of the District Judge to decide which procedure or rule was to be applied or adopted, as no specific rule governed the appointment of employees of the District Court establishment at the relevant time.”
Non-Applicability of Medical Examination Rules
The Court found that the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Examination) Rules, 1972, relied upon by the respondents to fault the voluntary retirements, were adopted by the High Court only on August 17, 1996. Therefore, these rules were not applicable when the petitioners were appointed in 1994-1995.
Irregular vs. Illegal Appointments
The Court drew a distinction between illegal and irregular appointments. It noted that the petitioners were appointed against vacant posts by the competent authority (District Judge) after a selection process. The failure to seek prior permission from the High Court, as required by a circular, amounted only to an irregularity.
The Court observed:
“The appointment of the petitioners was not illegal or void ab initio; at the most, it suffered from an irregularity which, after the petitioners rendered about 25 years of service, stood automatically cured.”
Per Incuriam Ruling
Regarding the reliance on the Rakesh Dubey judgment, the Bench held it to be per incuriam (decided in ignorance of law) because it failed to consider that no statutory rules existed in 1994-1995 and that the State Government rules had not been adopted at that time.
Decision
The Court held that the decision in Mansukh Lal Saraf applies only to “illegal appointments” and not to “irregular appointments.” Citing the Constitution Bench in Umadevi, the Court ruled that past cases should not be reopened.
The Bench concluded:
“There was no misrepresentation of facts by the petitioners, and the Department, with open eyes, considered their claim and appointed them. Therefore, the termination after about 22 years of service is bad in law.”
The Writ Petitions were allowed, the impugned orders dated 28.10.2017 were quashed, and reinstatement was ordered.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mohd. Shamim and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (and connected matters)
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 11415 of 2018
- Coram: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal
