http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PRAMOD LAHUDAS MESHRAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      The petitioner  complains that  he  being  a  qualified candidate  with   Diploma  in   Engineering  and   Secondary Education  had  applied  for  the  post  of  Oversear/Junior Engineer (Civil  Engineering) as per the advertisement dated April 30,  1991 published  in daily ’Tarun Bharat’ on May 2, 1991. The  advertisement indicated  that of the 3 posts, two were reserved  for backward  classes and one was for general candidates. Petitioner  being a reserved class, hailing from the Scheduled  Caste, received  letter of  appointments from the  Chairman,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  Zilla  Parishad, Gadchiroli; in  letter No.  PWB/Estt-I/1108/1/93 dated March 31, 1993  it was  stated that a recommendation had been made by Member  Secretary, Regional Subordinate Service Selection Board, Nagpur in their letter No. RSB/Nag/1210/M-792/PS-1/92 dated June  15, 1992  that 3  candidates were  selected. The names had  been repeated  and as regards the petitioner, his recommendation letter  No.RSB/Nag/1160/M-792/1992/PS-I dated July 31,  1992/7.8.92 was  said to  be issued  by the Member Secretary  selecting   the  petitioner  as  Junior  Engineer (Civil). Pursuant  thereto, he  came to  be appointed  as  a Junior  Engineer   with  probation   for  one   year.  After completion of  nine months  service, he  received the letter dated November  15, 1992  stating  therein  that  the  above letters carried unauthorised recommendations; therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The order of the Chief Executive  Officer,  Zilla  Parishad,  Gadchiroli  was impugned by  the petitioner  and others in the W.P.No.885/93 in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench claiming that they had  been  regularly  appointed  to  the  posts  which  were advertised;  therefore,   their  services   could   not   be terminated during  the probation  period  without  affording opportunity of  hearing in  the enquiry.  The High Court has dismissed  the  writ  petition.  Thus,  this  special  leave petition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Shri A.K.  Sanghi, learned  counsel for the petitioners has contended  that when  the posts  were advertised and the candidates were  found eligible,  it does  not mandate  that there should  be an  interview and  selection Obviously, the Servicc Selection  Board having  found the  petitioner to be eligible and  qualified, recommended him and was accordingly appointed as  Junior Engineer,  when it  was  sought  to  be cancelled on  a letter  written by  Member Secretary  of the Service Selection  Board, they  are entitled to be heard. No such opportunity  has ever been given before cancellation of their  appointments.   lt  was,   therefore,  violative   of principles of  natural justice.  We find  no  force  in  the contention. It is seen that on their own admission they have merely applied  for the  post pursuant  to an  advertisement made for  the selection.  It is  the case  of the  Selection Board that  a regular selection has to be made and selecting the  eligible  candidates,  recommendation  for  appointment would be  made. Therefore, the letter said to be recommended conveying the  eligible recommendations were not correct and according  to   the  rules  when  such  being  the  admitted position,  we   do  not   find  any   fault  to  cancel  the appointments. Under  those circumstances, we do not find any illegality in  the action taken by the respondents. However, such things  will not  be permitted  to be  kept  under  the carpet. The State Government is directed to refer the matter to the  appropriate State  CBI  enquiry  and  the  concerned Inspector would  make and independent investigation into the matter to  find out  to who  were responsible  for such mal- practice committed  and it  will be open to take appropriate criminal prosecution launched against the culprits.      The SLP  is dismissed. This order to be communicated to the D.G.P. Maharashtra.