DILLI RAM DAHAL Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Respondent No.1 can cancel the offer of appointment made to Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2, on grounds of lack of Notification of vacancies, considering that the offer made was in pursuance to a policy decision of the Government, to regularise their services and whether this Court can exercise judicial review in the realm of policy, are the two questions requiring determination in this petition.

(2.) The State-Respondent No.1 issued Memoranda offering appointment to the Petitioners No.1 and 2 in a temporary capacity, in the posts of Assistant Professors, on 5/12/2018. Both Petitioners had been working on ad hoc in the same posts since 2016 and 2014 respectively. The offer of appointment is said to be the fructification of a policy decision of the Government, to regularise the services of seventeen Assistant Professors, who had put in less than five years of ad hoc services, in different Government Colleges, which included the Petitioners. On 17/12/2018 the offer of appointment was revoked by the Respondent No.1, with the reasoning that, the new posts had not been notified.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners while reiterating the facts as delineated above, contended that the Petitioners having appeared in the same selection process as the nineteen candidates, requested the Government for similar treatment. That, pursuant thereto, vide Cabinet Memorandum bearing Memo No.71/ACS/HRDD, dtd. 24/11/2018, as per a policy decision of the Government, a proposal was put forth before the Cabinet for regularisation of the ad hoc services of seventeen Assistant Professors, to accommodate those who had put in even less than five years of ad hoc services, in different Government Colleges, which included the Petitioners. Eight new posts of Assistant Professors were also proposed to be created. The proposal was said to be concurred by the Finance, Revenue and Expenditure Department, with due relaxation of Roster Points. The Cabinet approved the proposals. On 5/12/2018, seventeen ad hoc Assistant Professors, including the Petitioners, were issued Memoranda offering appointment. However, on 17/12/2018, vide Office Order bearing No.453/DIR(HE)HRDD, the appointments were cancelled on the plea of being infructuous as the new posts had allegedly not been notified. Contrarily in the Counter-Affidavit, the State averred that the Petitioners had not completed five years of service and there was a lack of sanctioned posts. It is the stand of the Petitioners that the State-Respondents No.1 and 3 (hereinafter, State-Respondents) cannot now take the plea of lack of Notification, to deny reliefs to the Petitioners after the policy decision and Cabinet approval. That, in fact the regularisation of the services of the other nineteen Assistant Professors was only upon the approval of the Hon"ble Chief Minister of Sikkim, sans Notification of vacancies, whereas the matter concerning the Petitioners bore the stamp of approval of the Cabinet. Despite these circumstances their appointments were cancelled, without affording them an opportunity of being heard, clearly violating the principles of natural justice. Besides, appointments based on a policy decision which did not prescribe a selection procedure, cannot be cancelled by an Additional Chief Secretary of the Respondent No.1 Department.