Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed a batch of appeals filed by the State of Bihar against orders of the Patna High Court that had quashed termination orders of employees appointed in the Health Department through backdoor methods, forged documents, or without sanctioned posts. The background of the case involves large-scale illegal appointments made in the Health Department of Bihar until 1990. In the first round of litigation, this Court in Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar (1997) 2 SCC 1 held that such recruitments were arbitrary, capricious, null and void, and that none of the appointees had any accrued right. Subsequently, in State of Bihar v. Purendra Sulan Kit (2006 SCC OnLine Pat 290), the High Court directed the State to scrutinise the cases of affected employees afresh in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. Pursuant to this direction, a State Committee of five officers examined individual cases and categorised employees into three groups: forged documents, illegal appointments, and irregular appointments. The Committee found 358 cases of forged appointment letters, 228 cases of illegal appointments, and 91 cases of irregular appointments. Termination orders were passed against those in the forged and illegal categories. The employees challenged these terminations before the Single Judge, who quashed the Committee's report on the ground that only three members had signed it, violating natural justice, and directed reinstatement. The State's intra-court appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench in Binay Kumar Singh (2011 (3) PLJR 547), which held that the employees had worked for more than ten years and were entitled to regularisation. However, another Division Bench in a separate set of appeals (order dated September 24, 2014) set aside the Single Judge's order, holding that illegal appointments are void ab initio and cannot be regularised. The Supreme Court considered the legal issues: whether the appointments were illegal and void ab initio, whether the employees were entitled to regularisation, and whether the Committee's report was valid. The Court held that appointments made through forged documents or without sanctioned posts are illegal and void ab initio, conferring no right to regularisation. The Court distinguished between irregular appointments (where the appointing authority was competent but procedure was not followed) and illegal appointments (where the authority was incompetent or appointment was based on fraud). Following Umadevi, only irregular appointments could be regularised if the employee had worked for ten years. The Court also held that the Committee's report signed by three members was valid as a majority decision, and the absence of two members did not violate natural justice. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench in Binay Kumar Singh, and upheld the termination orders against employees in the forged and illegal categories. The appeals arising from the September 24, 2014 order were dismissed, affirming the Division Bench's decision.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Illegal Appointment - Void Ab Initio - Appointments made through backdoor methods, forged documents, or without sanctioned posts are illegal and void ab initio, conferring no right to regularisation or reinstatement - The court held that such appointments are null and void, following the ratio in Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar (1997) 2 SCC 1 and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 - The State Committee's categorisation of appointments as forged, illegal, or irregular was upheld, and termination orders based on such categorisation were valid (Paras 3-6, 10-12). B) Service Law - Regularisation - Umadevi Principles - Regularisation is permissible only for irregular appointments where the employee has worked for ten years and the appointment was made by a competent authority against a sanctioned post - The court clarified that illegal or forged appointments cannot be regularised even if the employee has worked for a long period - The Division Bench's order in Binay Kumar Singh was held to be contrary to law (Paras 4-7, 10-12). C) Natural Justice - Committee Report - Majority Decision - The State Committee's report signed by three out of five members was valid and not violative of natural justice - The court held that the absence of two members did not vitiate the report, as the majority decision was binding - The Single Judge's quashing of the report on this ground was erroneous (Paras 5-7, 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether appointments made through backdoor methods, forged documents, or without sanctioned posts in the Health Department of Bihar are illegal and void ab initio, and whether such employees are entitled to regularisation or reinstatement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State, set aside the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench in Binay Kumar Singh, and upheld the termination orders against employees in the forged and illegal categories. The appeals arising from the September 24, 2014 order were dismissed, affirming the Division Bench's decision that illegal appointments are void ab initio and cannot be regularised.
Law Points
- illegal appointment
- void ab initio
- regularisation
- natural justice
- forged documents
- backdoor entry
- Umadevi principles
- Ashwani Kumar ratio
