Court dismisses writ petitions, deems appointments illegal, directs action against officials.

The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners' appointments were illegal and void ab-initio, made contrary to Article 14 without competitive selection, and thus could not be regularized. The court directed the State Government to take appropriate action against the officials involved in the illegal appointments and submit a report within eight weeks.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments for purposes of regularisation.
2. Validity of termination of petitioners' appointments.
3. Requirement of procedural compliance and natural justice in termination.
4. Applicability of precedents and interpretation of relevant judgments.

Summary:

1. Distinction between Illegal and Irregular Appointments:
The seminal reference was whether (2010) 9 SCC 247 (State of Karnataka v. M. L. Kesari) departs from the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments as held in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi) for purposes of regularisation. The court concluded that there was no conflict between Uma Devi and M.L. Kesari. The former's distinction between illegal and irregular appointments was reaffirmed in the latter. The court emphasized that an appointment made without following the regular procedure in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution is illegal and cannot be regularised.

2. Validity of Termination of Petitioners' Appointments:
The petitioners were appointed on class IV posts by the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer and terminated on the grounds of illegal appointments. The court found that their initial appointments were not preceded by any advertisement or competitive merit selection, and there was no evidence that the appointments were made against sanctioned posts. The court held that the appointments were backdoor entries and thus illegal.

3. Requirement of Procedural Compliance and Natural Justice in Termination:
The petitioners contended that their termination after 11 years of service was unjustified and that they were not given a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The court found that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, which they did not reply to, and thus there was no violation of natural justice. The court emphasized that natural justice is not an abstract principle and its applicability depends on the facts of each case.

4. Applicability of Precedents and Interpretation of Relevant Judgments:
The court referred to various precedents, including (Uma Devi), (M.L. Kesari), and others, to conclude that illegal appointments cannot be regularised. The court noted that the observations in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi must be read in the context of the entire judgment and cannot be interpreted to allow regularisation of appointments made in violation of Article 14. The court also highlighted the duty of litigants to present correct facts and the consequences of distorting or misrepresenting facts.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners' appointments were illegal and void ab-initio, made contrary to Article 14 without competitive selection, and thus could not be regularised. The court directed the State Government to take appropriate action against the officials involved in the illegal appointments and submit a report within eight weeks.

---