UNION OF INDIA Vs. K SRINIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27532 of 2023, dtd. 9/1/2024, whereby, the Writ Petition was allowed and the order impugned therein cancelling appointment of respondents herein was set aside.

(2.) The parties have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Court. In one of the litigation i.e., W.P.No.31379 of 2021, the respondents herein prayed for a direction to regularize their services and assailed the advertisement No.1 of 2021 dtd. 16/8/2021, whereby an open advertisement was issued inviting the candidature from open market. This Court passed order on 3/12/2021 and directed the petitioners therein/respondents to submit their physical applications within seven days and in turn, the employer was directed to permit the respondents herein/petitioners therein to participate in the selection process. Admittedly, the petitioners therein were directed to participate in the selection process, but none of them could be selected.

(3.) Pursuant to the vacancy circular No.1 of 2023, dtd. 7/2/2023, the respondents submitted their application for selection for the posts of office attendants/laboratory attendants. The respondents were selected and one such appointment order dated 20/21/6/2023 is filed for example. However, subsequently by order dtd. 26/9/2023, the services of the respondents were terminated for the single reason that the said internal circular No.1 of 2023 was not in consonance with the recruitment rules and was issued without issuing any advertisement and without calling the candidatures from outside candidates. This cancellation of appointment became subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.27532 of 2023. The Writ Court opined that petitioners before it participated in the recruitment process and pursuant to Notification No.1 of 2021, dtd. 16/8/2021 became successful in mock test and they were accordingly appointed. On the basis of this premises, the Writ Court opined that the appointment of respondents at best can be treated to be 'irregular' and cannot be treated as 'illegal'. The cancellation of appointment was accordingly interfered with. There was yet another reason for interference in the cancellation of appointment orders i.e., nonobservance of the principles of natural justice.