Long service cannot validate a public appointment founded on judicial relief granted to others.

The petitioner was adjusted as a Sweeper/Chaukidar by departmental order dated 20 January 1995, expressly on the basis of an order in Ram Prakash Singh v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 5891 (S/S) of 1994, and subject to his withdrawing that petition and producing the relevant order.

He was not a party to that case and repeatedly informed the department that he could not comply with the condition because he had never filed the petition.

After proceedings concerning his claim for salary, the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer cancelled the adjustment on 30 April 2005.

The petitioner challenged that order and sought continuity of service and salary arrears; he died during the writ proceedings, and his legal representatives were substituted.

1. Whether cancellation of the adjustment was invalid for want of authority, breach of natural justice, or because of the petitioner’s length of service.

2. Whether the petitioner or, after his death, his legal representatives were entitled to continuity of service or salary arrears under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Public employment must have a lawful source and comply with the requirement of equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; a departmental error does not create a right to continue in an appointment founded on a judicial order that did not apply to the employee.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, length of service does not validate an appointment lacking a substantive legal foundation, although it may be relevant to an irregular appointment.

Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, distinguishes illegal appointments from irregular appointments and cautions against mechanically disregarding long service in cases involving genuine engagement and lack of notice; it does not protect an appointment whose legal foundation is absent.

Natural justice requires a fair opportunity to answer the proposed ground of action, but does not require repeated opportunities where the decisive facts are admitted and the person’s explanation is already before the authority.

The 1995 adjustment order identified the Ram Prakash Singh litigation as its basis, but the petitioner was not a party to that case and could not satisfy the condition requiring its withdrawal.

The order therefore lacked the stated legal foundation, and the department’s error and the petitioner’s length of service could not create an independent entitlement to public employment.

The Court declined to affirm the impugned order’s allegation of conspiracy because no regular enquiry had established personal misconduct; that allegation was unnecessary to decide the legality of the adjustment.

The petitioner knew the basis of the proposed action, had repeatedly responded to it, and identified no further explanation he was prevented from submitting; accordingly, the natural-justice challenge did not warrant interference.

Continuity could not be granted after the petitioner’s death, and arrears were unsupported by verified attendance, duty, or salary records.

It rejected the claims for continuity and salary arrears and dismissed the writ petition; any interim order was discharged, pending applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.