Supreme Court Invalidates Appointments, Upholds State's Decision Citing Violations of Constitutional Mandates.

The SC set aside the HC's judgments, declaring the appointments made by the Revenue Commissioner invalid and non-est in law. The SC upheld the State's cancellation of these appointments, emphasizing that they were made without proper authority and violated constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16. The Court ruled that the respondents were not entitled to hold the posts or receive salaries, as they failed to prove the legality of their appointments. The SC stressed the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and ensuring a transparent recruitment process. Appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appointments made by the Revenue Commissioner.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Authority and power of the Commissioner of Revenue to make appointments.
4. Legality of the cancellation of appointments.
5. Entitlement of the respondents to hold the posts and receive salaries.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Appointments Made by the Revenue Commissioner:
The State of Manipur questioned the validity of appointments made by the Revenue Commissioner, Shri A.J. Tayeng, to posts such as Mandols, Process-Servers, and Zilladars. These appointments were made without the knowledge of the State and were not recorded officially. The Commissioner initially denied making such appointments but later affirmed in an affidavit that the appointment orders bore his signature. The Supreme Court noted that the appointments were made without following the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16, which require a fair and transparent recruitment process.

2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The High Court had quashed the cancellation orders on the grounds of non-compliance with principles of natural justice. However, the Supreme Court held that in cases where appointments are found to be forged or non-est in law, compliance with principles of natural justice is not necessary, especially when it would result in futility. The Court cited precedents such as Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ajay Kumar Das and Ors., which stated that if appointments are nullities, the question of observing natural justice does not arise.

3. Authority and Power of the Commissioner of Revenue to Make Appointments:
The Commissioner of Revenue was not the appointing authority but merely a cadre controlling authority and Chairman of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for non-ministerial posts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Commissioner did not have the delegated power to make appointments, and any such appointments made were beyond his authority. The Court highlighted that the appointments were made without proper advertisement or notification to the employment exchange, thus violating the constitutional scheme.

4. Legality of the Cancellation of Appointments:
The Supreme Court upheld the State's action of canceling the appointments, stating that the offers of appointment were forged and not issued by a competent authority. The action of the State was deemed bona fide and not arbitrary. The Court reiterated that any action taken in violation of constitutional and legal frameworks is not binding on the State.

5. Entitlement of the Respondents to Hold the Posts and Receive Salaries:
The respondents failed to establish a legal right to hold the posts or receive salaries. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents could not prove that their appointments were made following the constitutional mandate. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the respondents to show the legality of their appointments, which they failed to do. Consequently, the respondents were not entitled to hold the posts or receive salaries from the State exchequer.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, holding that the appointments were invalid, non-est in law, and made without proper authority. The appeals were allowed, and the cancellation of the appointments was upheld. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and the necessity of a transparent recruitment process.

---