MP High Court Quashes Termination Of District Court Staff After Over 22 Years Service, Says 'Irregular' Appointments Not Illegal

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the termination of several Class-III employees of District Court establishments, holding that their removal from service after more than two decades on the ground of alleged illegality in appointment was unsustainable in law. The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal ruled that the appointments made in the years 1994–1995 were not illegal or void ab initio, but at the highest suffered from procedural irregularities which stood cured with the passage of time and long continuance in service.The petitioners were appointed to various Class-III posts in District Courts after their parents, who were government employees, sought voluntary retirement under Rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The appointments were made following written examinations and interviews, and the petitioners continued in service for nearly 22 to 25 years, during which they were promoted and their service records were periodically approved by the High Court Registry. In 2017, however, their services were terminated pursuant to scrutiny initiated following directions issued in Mansukh Lal Saraf v. Arun Kumar Tiwari, on the ground that their appointments were contrary to the compassionate appointment policy and the Medical Examination Rules, 1972.The High Court noted that at the time of the petitioners' appointments, there were no statutory recruitment rules governing Class-III posts in District Court establishments. The Bench traced the applicable position to earlier circulars of the High Court, particularly the 1984 memorandum, which empowered District Judges to recruit Class-III employees in the usual manner against vacancies as and when they arose. The Court observed that statutory rules governing such appointments were framed only in 2016 and amended in 2019, and therefore could not be retrospectively applied to appointments made in 1994–1995.Rejecting the State's reliance on the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Medical Examination) Rules, 1972, the Court held that these rules were not adopted by the High Court until August 1996 and were therefore inapplicable at the time of appointment of the petitioners. The Bench further held that it was within the prerogative of the District Judge to adopt or not adopt State Government circulars relating to compassionate appointment, as no binding rule governed such appointments at the relevant time.The Court also examined the effect of the withdrawal of the compassionate appointment circular dated 10 June 1994 by a subsequent circular dated 3 January 1995. It held that where applications for voluntary retirement or compassionate appointment were submitted when the scheme was in force, the subsequent withdrawal could not automatically invalidate appointments made thereafter, particularly in the absence of any express retrospective operation.Distinguishing Mansukh Lal Saraf, the Bench clarified that the directions in that case applied only to illegal appointments made in violation of statutory recruitment rules, and not to appointments that were merely irregular due to procedural lapses. The Court further held that the judgment in Rakesh Dubey v. District & Sessions Judge, Jabalpur was rendered per incuriam, as it failed to consider the applicable circulars and the absence of recruitment rules at the relevant time, and was in any event pending consideration before the Supreme Court.Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the High Court reiterated that long-standing appointments should not be reopened after decades in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation. The Court observed that the petitioners were appointed by competent authorities with full knowledge of facts, and that termination after more than 22 years of service was arbitrary and violative of settled principles of service jurisprudence.Accordingly, the High Court allowed all the writ petitions, quashed the impugned termination orders dated 28 October 2017, and directed reinstatement of the petitioners to their respective posts. However, the Court denied back wages while granting all consequential service and promotional benefits in accordance with law.Case: MOHD. SHAMIM AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 11415 of 2018Click here to read order

MP High Court Quashes Termination Of District Court Staff After Over 22 Years Service, Says 'Irregular' Appointments Not Illegal

Srinjoy Das

Tags