Supreme Court upholds termination of government employees appointed without following mandatory 1980 Bihar circular procedures

The SC dismissed appeals challenging termination orders of Class III and IV government employees. The appointments were made without following mandatory circular procedures issued by Bihar Government in 1980 for non-discriminatory selection process. Despite serving 10-20 years, petitioners could not claim regularization under Umadevi precedent as their initial appointments were illegal and void ab initio. The State Committee found appointments made by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer were unlawful, and petitioners failed to establish genuineness of their appointments. The court held that illegal appointments cannot be sanctified through long service duration.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the termination orders issued against the writ petitioners.
2. Validity of the appointments made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer.
3. Application of the principles laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi (3) and M.L. Kesari regarding regularization of service.
4. Requirement of disciplinary proceedings for termination of service.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Termination Orders:

The Supreme Court dealt with the appeals filed by the State of Bihar challenging the High Court's decision to reinstate the writ petitioners with consequential benefits. The High Court had previously set aside the termination orders on the grounds of violation of natural justice. However, the Supreme Court found that the termination orders were justified as the writ petitioners could not establish the legality of their appointments, which were made without following due process. The Court emphasized that the appointments were illegal and void ab initio, and thus, the termination orders were upheld.

2. Validity of the Appointments:

The appointments in question were made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer without adhering to the prescribed legal recruitment process. The State Government discovered that many appointments were based on false or forged documents and without proper appointment orders. The Supreme Court agreed with the State Committee's findings that the appointments were illegal and void from the outset. The Court noted that the writ petitioners failed to prove the genuineness of their appointments, and thus, their claims for reinstatement were dismissed.

3. Application of Umadevi (3) and M.L. Kesari:

The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) and M.L. Kesari, which state that regularization is possible only for irregular appointments, not illegal ones. The Court clarified that for regularization, the appointment must be made against a sanctioned post, and the appointee must possess the requisite qualifications. In this case, the appointments were deemed illegal as they were not made against sanctioned posts and did not follow the due process. Therefore, the Court held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to regularization under the principles of Umadevi (3) and M.L. Kesari.

4. Requirement of Disciplinary Proceedings:

The Supreme Court addressed the argument regarding the necessity of disciplinary proceedings before termination. It held that since the appointments were void ab initio, the writ petitioners could not be considered civil servants of the State. Consequently, the requirement of disciplinary proceedings under Article 311 of the Constitution or any other disciplinary rules did not arise. The Court concluded that the termination of services without disciplinary proceedings was justified in this context.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals filed by the writ petitioners, upheld the termination orders, and allowed the appeals filed by the State of Bihar. The Court's decision was based on the illegality of the appointments and the inapplicability of the regularization principles under Umadevi (3) and M.L. Kesari.

---