RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Garg, J. In a programme launched by Central Government as well as State Government, known as Post Por-tem Programme, a large number of ap pointments were to be made on different technical posts. This programme was run ning under the Department of Obst. and Gynaecology of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad at S. R. N. Hospital Campus. The technical posts included the post of Projectionist. One Mohd. Rizvi was holding the said post in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College under the Prin cipal, M. L. N. Medical College, Al lahabad-respondent No. 3. Sri Rizvi died on 16-7-1993 and consequently, the said post had fallen vacant. The petitioner ap plied for the said post. The Principal of the College sought, clarification from the Director General, Medical Education and Training U. P. Lucknow-respondent No. 2 by letter dated 9-6-1994. The Director General, in his turn, recommended the appointment of the petitioner by his letter dated 30-3-1995 after verification of the services and other papers of the petitioner. Dr. K. N. Singh, the then Principal of the MLN Medical College, Allahabad ap pointed the petitioner on 17-6-1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 on temporary basis vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The services of the petitioner were ter minable at any time, without notice. The petitioner joined on 1-7-1995. After the removal of Dr. K. N. Singh from the post of Principal, Dr. (Smt.) Krishna Mukherjee took over as Principal. An enquiry was initiated against the irregular and illegal appointments made by Dr. K. N. Singh and the committee, which was formed for the purpose came to the conclusion that Dr. Singh had made appointments of 39 posts of class III cadre and 43 posts of class IV cadre. The services of 21 illegally ap pointed Staff Nurses were dispensed with. It was also found that the appointment of the petitioner too was against the rules, inasmuch as, he was appointed without having the minimum requisite qualifica tions for the post and that the procedure prescribed by the rules for appointment was not followed.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the ser vice conditions of the petitioner are governed by U. P. Chikitsha Adhinastha Karyalaya Samuh 'ga' Takniki Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). Under item No. 15 of the Rules, the post of Projectionist-cum-Mechanic is men tioned and the minimum requisite qualification for the post is High School with Science and Maths by U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, or, equivalent thereto and a certificate from the recognised Industrial Training Institute (for brevity called TIT) in the relevant field/profession, duly recognised by the State Government. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fulfil the aforesaid basic qualification as he is not possessed of a certificate from any recognised ITI in the discipline, of Projection. The petitioner could not produce the certificate, as aforesaid, though he submitted a reply on 21-5-1997, which is contained in Annexure 10 to the writ petition, to the show cause notice dated 16-5-1997 (Annexure 9' o the writ petition ). Not satisfied with the ex planation submitted by the petitioner, his services were terminated by the impugned order dated 30-5-1997 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) and steps had been taken to call for the list of the eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange.

(3.) AS said above, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification in the form of certificate from ITI, as is, required for the post of Projectionist under the rules. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in none of the ITIs, the aforesaid course is available and, there fore, the petitioner could not fulfil the qualification and, hence, the provision of qualification in the rules is otiose and un workable. According to learned Counsel, the work assigned to the Projectionist is to operate the Projectors to teach public at large, showing the films relating to the Family Planning; that the petitioner has the capability and efficiency as well as familiarity with the operation of the Projectors and it was for this reason that the District Magistrate Allahabad, who is licensing authority, has granted a licence to the petitioner under Rule 26 (b) of the Cinematography Rules, 1951 and on the basis of this licence, the petitioner is com petent to hold the said post. Learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions as to whether professional course, which is required for the post of Projectionist, as mentioned in item 15 of the Rules, is available in any IT1 of the. country. Dr. Krishna Mukherjee, Prin cipal, MLN Medical College, Allahabad by her letter dated 20-1 -98 which has been placed on record has intimated that there are as many as four Institutes in the country, namely, (i) Institute of Technol ogy (N. C. E. R. T Campus, Arlindo Marg, New Delhi; (ii) Satyajit Ray Institute, Cal cutta; (iii) Banglore Institute, Banglore and (iv) Poona Institute, Pune, in which professional certificate in the Projection Course is granted. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in none of the Training Institute the above professional course is available, therefore, is wrong. The fact remains that the petitioner dses not fulfil the minimum qualification, as Laid down in item No. 15 of the Rules for the post of Projectionist-cum-Mechanic and, therefore, he was not eligible for appointment on the said post. The petitioner was straight away ap pointed on the said post on the basis of the letter written by Director General without adopting the due procedure prescribed for recruitment under the Rules. The ap pointment of the petitioner was totally de hors the procedure and it was for this reason that on objection was raised by the Director General, Medical Education and Training, U. P. by letter dated 2-5-1997. It is a case in which a full fledged enquiry was conducted in regard to the appointment which of the petitioner as well as other appointments were made by Dr. K. N. Singh in an illegal manner. The petitioner was served with show cause notice and his appointment was rightly cancelled as he did not fulfil the minimum requisite qualification for the post on which he was appointed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions has approved the can cellation of appointments, if they are de hors the procedure prescribed by rules or, in any manner, illegal for want of mini mum requisite qualification. In this con nection, reference may be had to the cases, AIR 1993 SC 796, Union Territory Chan digarh v. Dilbagh Singh and other; 1994 (5) SCC 695, Preet Pal Singh. State ; JT1996 (8) SC 510, Hanuman Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India &anr. ; JT (1996) 6 SC 515, Biswa Ranjan Sahoo & Ors. v. Sushant Kumar Dinda & Ors. ; (1996) 7 SCC 118, State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Shyama Pardhi& Ors. and (1997) 2 SCC l, AShwani Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. .