- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. In both these writ petitions, the 17 petitioners joined as Class IV employees on different Class IV posts, such as Ward Boys, Sweeper-cum-Choukidars and Chaukidar-cum-Sweepers at the places of their posting in the month of June 1996 in pursuance of the different orders of appointment dated 7- 6-1996 passed by Dr. Yashpal Singh, the then Chief Medical Officer Padrauna, now Kushinagar. Sadiq Ali and 7 others who are petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ No. 34448 of 1996 prayed for the reliefs, firstly, that the respondents be commanded not to interfere with the performance of their duties on the posts on which they have been appointed and that they may also be directed to pay regular monthly salaries to them along with arrears. During the pen dency of the said writ petition, write services of the aforesaid petitioners along with other Class IV employees, who were recruited and appointed with them, were terminated in pursuance of the order dated 27-3-1997 passed by the State Government and as communicated by orders dated 9/10-4-1997 by the Chief Medical Officer, Padrauna. A notice was also published in Dainik Jagran, a local daily on 13-4-1997 that the services of all the Class IV employees who were appointed in pursuance of the appointment letters signed and issued by Dr. Yashpal Singh, the then Chief Medical Officer shall stand cancelled.
(2.) ANOTHER writ petition No. 15657 of 1997 has been filed by Ram Pratap Singh and 8 others obviously after the order of cancellation of their appointments by the aforesaid Government order. In both the writ petitions now it is prayed that the orders of can celling the appointment of the petitioners issued by the Government as well as communicated by the Chief Medical Officer Padrauna and the notice issued in the Dainik Jagran be quashed and the respondents be directed not to interfere with the performance of duties by the petitioners on the posts on which they were appointed. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. Since in both the petitions, common questions of facts and law are involved, it is proposed to decide them together. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. An order was issued by the State Government on 20-9-1995 for filing up the then existing Class IV vacancies in the Medical Health Department of the State. It was contemplated and directed that in making such appointments, policy of reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribes and other back ward classes shall be kept in view. This Government order was addressed to the Director General, Medical Health and a copy thereof was endorsed to all the Chief Medical Officers in Uttar Pradesh. In pur suance of the aforesaid Government order, the Chief Medical Officer, Padrauna initiated proceedings for recruiting the candidates for class IV posts in the pay scale of Rs. 750-950. The vacan cies in Class IV cadre comprised of the posts of Ward Boys, Sweepers and Choukidars. An advertisement inviting the applications was published in the local newspaper 'siddha Bhumi' on 29-10- 1995. Applications were invited by 4-11-1995. Interviews were held in the month of January, 1996 by a selection committee constituted for the purpose and on 7-6-1996, appointment letters were issued to the successful candidates. In respect of one of the candidates, appointment letter was issued on 15-6- 96. All the selected can didates, who were 80 in number (37 Choukidar-cum-Sweepers and 43 other Class IV employees) joined in the month of June 1996 itself. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the fact that they have been duly selected after com pleting all the requisite formalities and have been continuously working from the date of their joining, their salary was not released and that subsequently, their ser vices were terminated abruptly in pur suance of the Government order dated 27-3-1997 passed by the State Govern ment. 5, The main thrust to challenge the cancellation of appointments on behalf of the petitioners is that the State Govern ment could not have passed the order which resulted in putting an end to the employment of the petitioners and that the order was passed without giving any notice or opportunity to them. The learned Counsel elaborated the point by making submission that it is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. It was further urged that the order of ap pointment conferred a vested right in the petitioners to hold various posts in Class IV cadre and that right could not be taken away without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and, therefore, the order passed by the State Government was in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently void. In order to fortify the above submission the learned Counsel placed reliance on the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1990 SC 307, Shree Dhar v. Nagar Palika jaunpur and others ; AIR 1991 SC 309 Shrawan Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar and others, as well as of this Court reported in (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1276, Pratap Singh Rawat v. State of U. P. and others. The gamut of all these rulings is that the petitioners should have been given an opportunity of hearing before can celling their appointments and since no such opportunity was afforded in the cases referred to above, it was held that the orders passed to the detriment of the petitioners of those cases without complying the rules of natural justice are void and inoperative. 6. Learned Standing Counsel repelled the above submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and urged that in the instant case, the whole exercise which was undertaken by Dr. Yashpal Singh, the then Chief Medical Of ficer Padrauna was reduced to a farce, inas much as, serious irregularities and il legalities were committed in appointing the petitioners and other similarly placed candidates without following the due pro cedure prescribed for inviting the applica tions, constitution of selection committee and preparation of merit list. The policy of reservation, it was suggested, was also given a complete go by. 7. There is no doubt about the fact that certain complaints were made from various quarters about the manner in which Dr. Yashpal Singh selected the can didates. The notice of the complaints was also taken by the Director of Medical Health, U. P. Lucknow who made refer ence to the State Government and also issued stern orders prohibiting the passing of the orders of appointment, posting and transfers by the Chief Medical Officer, Padrauna. Under the orders of the Chief Secretary, U. P. Government an enquiry was set up in July 1996 into the alleged gross irregularities committed by the then Chief Medical Officer, Padiauna. Sri Rakesh Kumar Goel, Joint Secretary State of U. P. Medical and Health Department was appointed to enquire into the matter. A detailed report of enquiry submitted by Sri Goel dated 25-7- 1996, which is An-nexure C. A.-7 to the counter-affidavit, speaks of horrid story. A perusal of the enquiry report would itself indicate that the entire process of recruitment was un fair, unreasonable and injudicious and ob viously recourse was taken to the selection process for personal aggrandize meant. The enquiry officer was faced with certain in surmountable difficulties as certain relevant and crucial documents, including the establishment register of the District Medical Department were not made avail able as they were squandered and removed from the arena of enquiry. Conclusions of the enquiry report may particularly be culled out to indicate the capricious and arbitrary manner in which Dr. Yashpal Singh has played with the petitioners and other similarly placed persons. He had not been able to assess the exact vacancies for which recruitment was to take place. The advertisement was made only in one local newspaper which obvious; did not have wide circulation and a short period of only one week was given to the candidates to submit their applications. There is no record of the applications which were received by the specified date. The selec tion committee, under the Government orders, has to have the nominee of the District Magistrate, but unfortunately, there is nothing on record to indicate that Dr. Yashpal Singh approached the District Magistrate to nominate a person as a num ber of the Selection Committee. It is al leged that one Rabit Prasad, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar was nominated by the District Magistrate and that he had taken part in the interviews and had signed the select-list. During the course of enquiry, Sri Rabit Prasad was examined and he has denied the fact of his being a member of the selection commit tee. It appears that Sri Rabit Prasad was interested in getting some of his can didates appointed and, therefore, he col luded with Dr. Yashpal Singh. The con duct of Sri Rabit Prasad has been quite suspicious and he has not behaved in a manner which was expected of an officer holding the gazetted position of Deputy Collector. The fact, however, remains that there was no nominee of the District Magistrate in the selection committee. Not only this, Dr. Yashpal Singh arrogated himself to the superior position in the selection committee by ear-marking 40 marks of interview to himself and 15 marks each to the other members while the marks of interview should have been equal with each one of the members of the selec tion committee. The enquiry report fur ther indicates that it is not known as to how many applicants were interviewed. Everything was in a mess and in a State of utter confusion, inasmuch as, the appoint ment letters were prepared and signed and kept in duplicate for 92 persons while only 80 persons were sought to be appointed. All the appointment letters are dated 7-6-1996 while in one case, the appointment letter was issued on 15-6-1996. Certain candidates, who ought to have been ap pointed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in interview, were not given ap pointment. Such examples may be multi plied. Bharat Prasad, who is shown at serial No. 17 and Ramesh Prasad shown at SI. No. 45, got 64 and 66 marks respective ly, but they were denied the benefit of appointment though on account of higher marks, appointment letters should have been issued to them. Similarly, Madan Laxman and Hari Prasad respectively at SI. Nos. 97, 165 and 167 were not offered appointment though they fared well than the candidates who were extended the benefits of appointment. Ugriev at SI. No. 168 was selected as a Sweeper but was appointed as Dhobi. There are over- writ ings and cuttings in the Broad-sheets. The result has been that some of those persons, who had qualified for being appointed were not given appointment while those who were not selected were not only ap pointed but were allowed to join in hot and unholy haste. Another unsavoury feature of the selection which prominently states at our face is that the posts which were required to be manned by only Scheduled Caste candidates were stuffed by the can didates other than those who belong to the Scheduled Caste category. The posts of Sweeper or Sweeper-cum- Choukidar were compulsorily and, of necessity, were to be filled from amongst the persons who belonged to the Scheduled Caste category but unfortunately, out of 37 such selected candidates for the said posts, there were only 7 Scheduled Caste candidates and even in the case of such 7 persons, the fact that they belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, was doubtful as the required cer tificates were not available. It is also amaz ing to note that not even one person from the list sent by the Employment Exchange was selected. The fact that interviews had taken place in January, 1996 but the result of selection was declared after about 5 months is redolent of doubt and suspicion. There was no justifiable reason to postpone the declaration of the result after a long time of five months. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. There was a specific order dated 23-1-1996 issued by the Director of Medi cal and Health, U. P. that no appointment shall be made to the Class III and IV posts by any one of the Chief Medical Officers without prior approval and permission of the Director except in those cases in which the appointments of the candidates of reserved categories are made and in that case also, an information was to be trans mitted to the Directorate so that a nominee of the Director could be sent to oversee and supervise the selection process. Dr. Yashpal Singh had the audacity of violating the specific direc tions of the Head of Department. For all his misdeeds and misconducts, Dr. Yash pal Singh has been suspended ; a regular departmental enquiry against him has been initiated and a charge-sheet has been delivered to him. It is no gain saying that the order of suspension of Dr. Yashpal Singh has been kept in abeyance under the orders of this Court. The order of this Court staying the suspension of Dr. Yash pal Singh would obviously have no bearing on the contumacy, misconduct, insubor dination and misdeeds, if any, in respect of which a departmental enquiry is said to be going on. 9. From the above facts, it is well established that the State Government had complete justification to cancel the appointments of the petitioners as the ap pointment letters issued in favour of the petitioners were the product of a design to set at naught and throttle the entire proce dure of selection set out for recruitment to a public office. Learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the various observa tions made by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shankarson B. Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 and other decisions of the Supreme Court Union Territory Chandigarh v. Dil Bagh Singh and others, AIR 1993 SC 796; Preet Pal Singh v. State, 1994 (5) SCC 695; Hanuman Prasad and others v. Union of India and another, JT1996 (8) SC 510 and Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and others v. Sushant Kumar Dinda and others, JT (1996) 6 SC 515, to give fillip to his contention that the order of cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners cannot be made the sub ject-matter of challenge before this Court and in any case, since numerous ir regularities and illegalities were com mitted in the selection, the petitioners cannot complain about the cancellation of their appointments. It was also pointed out that the principle of natural justice in the cases like the present one, in which the selection has been totally in disregard of the procedure prescribed by the rules, is not required to be followed by issuing in dividual notice to the affected persons for affording them an opportunity of hearing. In this context, a reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court JT1991 (2) SC 296, Maharashtra State Board of Secon dary Education v. K. S. Gandhi and others ; Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and others v. Sushant Kumar Dinda and others and Hanuman Prasad and others v. Union of India and another (supra ). 10. A complete answer to the various submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners is to be found in the two recent cases of the Supreme Court reported in (1996) 7 SCC 118, State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Shyama Pardhi and others and (1997) 2 SCC 1, Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others. In Shyama Pardi 's case (supra), certain persons not possessing the pre requisite qualifications prescribed by statutory rules were wrongly selected and after successful completion of training were appointed as Auxiliary Nurse-cum-Midwife. Their appointment was ter minated. It was held that since the order of initial selection to undergo training was perse illegal, termination of their appoint ment did not attract principles of natural justice. In Ashwani Kumar's case, a large number of Class III and IV employees were appointed in Tuberculosis Eradica tion Scheme against the smaller number of posts. The Supreme Court found such ap pointments as void and further held that the said appointments were bad also be cause of omission to follow the recruit ment procedure and the order of termina tion in such cases, without affording an opportunity of hearing, was not violative of principles of natural justice. In the in stant case, the enquiry officer has also found that the number of persons ap pointed by Dr. Yashpal Singh far exceeded the number of vacancies in the district. 11. In view of above discussions and particularly in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shyam Pardhi and Ashwani Kumar's case (supra), the present petitioners have no case to canvass before this Court. The State Government has rightly cancelled their appointments. No interference in the matter is called for. Both the writ petitions, therefore, turn out to be without any merit and substance and have to be dismissed. 12. In the result, both the writ peti tions, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34448 of 1996, Sadiq Ali and 7others v. C. M. O. Padrauna and 2 others and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15657 of 1997; Ram Pratap Singh and 8 others v. State of U. P. and 5 others, are hereby dismissed. Costs easy. Petition dismissed. .;