Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HYAMA PARDHI ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1995
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of
the Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur M.P. Public Health and
Family Welfare Department Non-ministerial (Related to the
Directorate Health Services) Class-III Services Recruitment
Rules, 1989 (for short ’the Rules’), made under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution, prescribed qualification
for the appointment of Auxilliary Nurse-cum-Midwife (ANM),
viz., 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as
qualitative subjects. Admittedly, the respondents had not
possessed that qualification. It would be seen that the
District Medical Officer, therefore, wrongly selected the
respondents and sent them to the training. After their
successful completion of the training, he made appointment
as A.N.M. in the pay scale of Rs.950-1350/-. The respondents
were served with notice dated 31st January, 1994 intimating
that their selection for training was illegal and their
services would be terminated with effect from February 23,
1994. The respondents challenged the cancellation of their
appointment.
The Tribunal in the impugned order had held that the
respondents having been selected and undergone the training
and the competent authority having duly appointed them,
cancellation of their appointment without any opportunity is
violative of the principles of natural justice and it
accordingly set aside the order and directed their
reinstatement with consequential benefits. Hence, these
appeals by special leave.
It is now an admitted fact across the Bar that the
respondents had not possessed the pre-requisite
qualification, namely, 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry and
Biology as subjects. The Rules specifically provide that
qualification as a condition for appointment to the post of
ANM. Since prescribed qualifications had not been satisfied,
the initial selection to undergo training is per se illegal.
Later appointments thereof are in violation of the statutory
rules. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right in directing
the reinstatement of respondents. The question or violation
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
of the principles of natural justice does not arise. The
ratio of Shrawan Kumar Jha and Others vs. State of Bihar and
others (AIR 1991 SC 309), strongly relied on, has no
application to the facts of this case. That was a case where
appellants possessed initial qualifications but they did not
undergo the training. Since the appointment was set aside on
the ground of want of training, this Court interfered with;
directed the Government to reinstate them into service and
further directed them to send the appellants therein for
training.
The appeals are allowed and O.As. stand dismissed. No
costs.