P. C. JAIN, J. - (1.) ALL these writ petitions involved similar questions of facts and law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the order dated 10th May, 1988 (Annex-12) whereby their services were terminated with immediate effect by respondent No. 2. In all these writ petitions, the case of the petitioners is that they came to be appointed after due selection on regular basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-10-850-15-865 on the post of Ward Boy/class-IV employee by non-petitioner No. 2 under the order dated 29th April, 1988. The petitioners have further averred that their selection was made in a proper manner and they were duly interviewed. After their section they joined their duties. The grievance of the petitioners is that their services have been illegally terminated vide order dated 10th May, 1988 passed by respondent No. 2. Their contention is that the order of termination dated 10th May, 1988 is in flagrant disregard of the principles of natural justice in as much as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them. They have further contended in the writ petitions that the impugned order dated 10th May, 1988 is arbitrary and unreasonable and is also violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. All the writ petitions were admitted and notices were issued to the respondents. On stay petition this Court stayed the operation of the order (Annex-2) dated 10th May, 1988 and allowed the petitioners to continue on the post. Shri G. P. Sharma, Advocate appeared for respondent No. 2 and the State was represented by Additional Government Advocate. Respondent No. 3 has filed reply. Learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that the writ petitions may be disposed of at the stage of confirmation of the stay order as such, all the writ petitions are being disposed of opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Shri G. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 vehemently submitted that the appointment given to the petitioners was in violation of the rules as the then Chief Medical and Health Officer gave the appointment without following the procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Class-lv Services (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules 1963. In fact the Board was not properly constituted. The then Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jhunjhunu became the Chairman of the Board and appointed the petitioner for extraneous considerations. He has further contended that the appointment of the petitioners is not in accordance with rules 14, 17, 18 & 20 of the said Rules. He has further submitted that all the candidates whose names were available in the office of respondent No. 2 were neither considered nor they were given opportunity to appear in the Selection Board. Although more than 77 candidates were available as per list sent by the Joint Director, Samaj Kalyan and Sainik Welfare Board, Jhunjhunu. The list of the candidates from the District Regional Employment Exchange, Jhunjhunu was not available in the office of the respondent No. 2. Shri G. P. Sharma has thus, submitted that such an appointment cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law and can only be held to be void appointment which does not confer any right to hold office. Shri G. P. Sharma has placed reliance on Sang Singh v. Municipal Board Pokaran (1), Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar (2) and Jagan Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan (3) to substantiate his contention that if the order of appointment under challenge is void then observations of the principles of natural justice may be avoided.
(3.) SHRI Dhankar has placed reliance on un-reported judgment of this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 408/87 Bhairon Singh v. Sawai Madhopur Via Tonk Zila Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. connected appeals decided on 23rd March, 1987 to substantiate his contention that even if the order under challenge may be void still the principle of audi-alteram partem being basic concept of principles of natural justice should be observed. Thus, a short question which is involved in this writ petition is whether before passing the order of termination dated 10th May, 1988 an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioners in Bhairon Singh v. Sawai Madhopur Via Tonk Zilla Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (supra) this question was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court and it has been laid down that even if the order of appointment be illegal or void in law still before termination of services an opportunity of being heard should be given to the employee. In that case, certain appointment were given to the petitioners and the appointment was challenged on the ground that the appointment was unauthorised and without authority of the Board and that the petitioners were not qualified to be appointed. The termination of the services of the petitioners in that case was challenged and the Court observed as follows: "regarding the submission of Shri Singhvi that the appointment was unauthorised or without any authority of the Board, or that the petitioners were not qualified to be appointed are the subject-matter which could be decided after giving an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. Therefore we are of the opinion that the impugned order of termination dated 31st January, 1987 was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and was, thus, void. " While expressing the opinion, this Court had placed reliance on Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (4), wherein it was observed that first rule of natural justice is "no man shall be a judge in his own cause" and second rule is "hear the other side" and a corollary has been deducted from the above two rules and that is ' justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seem to be done". The audi alteram partem rule made in its full amplitude means that a person be informed of the allegations against him, he be given an opportunity to submit his explanation. ;