Temporary appointment

Modus operandi regarding temporary appointment or for that matter incharge posting otherwise could be a stop gap arrangement

Seniority list had already been chalked out by the competent authority

Although seniority list was not sufficient for consideration in the case of promotion in higher rank but coupled with other factors, consideration of a person who qualified to be considered as such was necessary

Procedure for appointment provided in the rules was also liable to be followed

Departure from rules particularly where certain legal rights were involved militated against due process of law and mocked the concept of better government

Impugned notification was set aside and the department was directed to fill in the post of Divisional Director (Female) in accordance with relevant rules

Writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

University, under the statutory rules, cannot put an employee on ad hoc basis for an unreasonably long period when the appointment is made against a permanent and budgetary post.

Temporary appointment would always be subject to verification of character and antecedents.

Petitioners who were regular employees of the department and were promoted on officiating basis, had right that their cases for regular promotion be presented before the Selection Committee for consideration

Selection Committee was to examine as to whether petitioners (regular employees) were entitled to confirmation on the basis of their seniority and fitness or not

Department was directed by High Court to advertise the posts held by the said officials (appointed on temporary basis) against the quota reserved for initial recruitment within specified period

Writ petition was allowed in circumstances.

Temporary appointment did not confer any right for permanent induction.

Subsequently, the salaries of the petitioners were stopped by the authorities on account of their appointment being illegal

Contention of the petitioners was that the penal action taken by the authorities without serving show-cause notice or hearing the petitioners was violative of principles of natural justice

Validity

Penal action initiated by the departmental authorities to terminate services of petitioners straightaway without affording them opportunity of hearing was illegal

Authorities were bound to issue show-cause notices separately to all the petitioners, although appointed temporarily, by mentioning the set of allegations that they had been appointed by the then Nazim illegally and without adopting the prescribed procedure under the rules

Authorities had acted in utter violation of the principle of audi alteram partem, which was applicable to all judicial as well as non judicial proceedings and was to be read as a part of every statute

Penal action of termination from service taken by the authorities was ab initio void, unconstitutional, ultra vires and against the norms of principles of natural justice

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Right of personal hearing to a person against whom an adverse order was to be made was mandatory instead of a straightaway termination from service

Proper course for the authorities was to issue show-cause notice and to conduct inquiry to ascertain the question of his fitness to retain him in service for which he was recruited

Joint order of termination of service passed by the authorities was violative of principles of natural justice and the same had to be treated as a void order.