Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aakash Karan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 8290 of 2023
JITENDRA SHAKYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8306 of 2023
TAPENDRA SINGH SIKARWAR AND OTHERS
Versus
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, KAILARAS AND ANOTHER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Indapurkar -Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma- Advocate for the respondent no.1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 8889 of 2023
DEV SHARMA AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 9/24/2025
10:10:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449
2
Shri Shashank Indapurkar -Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma & Shri Ankur Maheshwari - Advocate for
the respondent no.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 9305 of 2023
SMT. SEEMA BALMIKI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri G.S. Sharma -Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent no.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 9368 of 2023
BRIJESH DHAULPURIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Ajit Kumar Sudele & Shri Sushil Chandra Chaturvedi-
Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 12376 of 2023
SANJAY SAVITA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 9/24/2025
10:10:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449
3
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Bajpai - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma- Advocate for the respondent no.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 14576 of 2023
AAKASH KARAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Bajpai - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 15796 of 2023
BHOLARAM BALMIKI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Mahesh Goyal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 18104 of 2023
VICKY BATHAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Mahesh Goyal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 9/24/2025
10:10:43 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449
4
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 16735 of 2023
AAKASH SHARMA AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Bajpai - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on: 16/09/2025
Pronounced on : 23/09/02025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The Chief Municipal Officer of Nagar Parishad, Kailaras, District Morena, (respondent no.4), vide order, dated 10.04.2023, dispensed with services of as many as 109 persons who were engaged on contract/daily wages by the then Chief Municipal Officer, challenging which these writ petitions have been filed. The facts and the legal position since are common in all these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common order. For purposes of convenience, the facts are taken from W.P. No.8290 of 2023 filed by Jitendra Shakya and nine others.
[2]. The Nagar Parishad, Kailaras, District Morena (hereinafter referred as "Council"), has been constituted under Section 5 of Municipalities Act, 1961, (in short 'Act'). By virtue of Section 3(18) of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 5 Act, Nagar Parishad is a Municipality and is governed by the Act of 1961. Section 86 of the Act provides for constitution of State Municipal Service and sub-section 3 thereof provides that the salary, allowances, gratuity, annuity, pension and other payments required to be made to the members of the State Municipal Service, in accordance with the conditions of their service, shall be a charge on the Municipal Fund. Section 87 of the Act provides for appointment of Chief Municipal Officer for every Council and further provides that all other officers & servants of the Council shall be subordinate to Chief Municipal Officer. Section 88 of the Act provides for appointment of members of Municipal Services of State. The appointment of petitioners is not covered under Section 86 & 88 of the Act.
[3]. Section 94 of the Act provides for appointment of staff of the Council. Under sub-section 1 thereof, it is the Council which is competent to appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties. This section apparently deals with power of Council to appoint officers and servants within the staffing pattern approved by the State Government. The petitioners are not covered under Section 94(1) of the Act also.
[4]. Sub-section 9 of Section 94 of the Act provides for another source of appointment in the Council which may possibly cover petitioners. It being important for decision of this case, is reproduced hereunder:
"94(9). The President-in-Council may, with prior permission of the State Government, appoint subject specialists and personnel on contract for specified period and the manner and terms and conditions of appointment of such specialists Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 6 and personnel on contract shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government"
[5]. Thus, under Section 94(9) of the Act, the Council may appoint personnel on contract for specified period, however such appointment can only be made with the permission of the State Government and on terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government.
[6]. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal provisions, the facts of the present case are required to be examined.
[7]. A copy of resolution, dated 06.12.2021, has been brought on record at page no.23 of the petition which approved appointment of 42 employees on contract basis for purposes of water distribution, revenue collection etc. of the Council. The Chief Municipal Officer of the Council was authorized to carry out the formalities. Immediately thereafter, the appointment orders were issued in favour of petitioners in the month of December' 2021 itself. The petitioners claim that they worked pursuant to these appointment orders in Council till November' 2022 and, thereafter salary was not paid to them.
[8]. As per the rely filed by respondent Council, one Mahesh Shukla made a complaint alleging that the then CMO of the Council misused and abused his official position and made illegal purchase of goods and has also made illegal appointments in the Council. A question in this regard was also raised in Legislative Assembly in December' 2021 itself. Taking note of aforesaid complaint, the Collector directed for enquiry into the allegations by Project Officer, District Urban Development Authority (in short 'DUDA'). The Project Officer Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 7 submitted his report to Collector on 05.12.2022, (Annexure R-4/3) wherein he reported serious financial irregularities in the matter of purchase of goods and also regarding engagement of 109 employees on contract basis without there being any necessity and without following procedure. So far engagement of petitioners are concerned, following report was submitted:
"3. नगरपपाललिकपा ककैलिपारस ममे लबिनपा ककससी लनयम प्रकक्रियपा कमे शपासन आदमेशशों अननुसपार दकैलनक वमेतन भभोगसी/ससंलवदपा कमर्मचपारसी रखमे जपानमे पर प्रलतबिनन्ध हभोनमे कमे बिपाद भसी कमर्मचपारसी लिगपानमे ककी लशकपायत ककी गई थसी, लशकपायत ककी जपासंच उपरपासंत पपायपा गयपा, कक नगरपपाललिकपा ककैलिपारस ममें शसी ससंतभोश लसहपारमे ततकपालिसीन ससी.एम.ओ. एवसं अनय ससीएमओ दपारपा शपासन कमे लनयमशों कमे लवरूद नगर पररषद ककैलिपारस ममें 106 कमर्मचपाररयभो ककी दकैलनक वमेतन भभोगसी/ससंलवदपा कमर्मी कमे पद पर वषर्म 2020-21 ममें लनयनुलक्ति ककी गई हकै, लजसककी ससूचसी वतर्ममपान ससी.एम.ओ. नगर पररषद ककैलिपारस समे प्रपापत ककी गई हकै, ससूचसी ममें कनुछ कमर्मचपाररयशों ककी फपाईलि पर ससंलवदपा पर लनयनुलक्ति हभोनपा दशपार्मयपा गयपा हकै, लजसककी जजॉंच ममें नगर पररषद दपारपा करमर्मक ससंरचनपा कमे लवपरसीत लबिनपा लनयम कमे ससीन्धमे आवमेदन लिमेकर दकैलनक वमेतन पर भतर्मी ककी गई। कनुछ कमर्मचपारसी ससंलवदपा कमे नपाम समे रखमे गयमे हहैं परनतनु न तभो ससंलवदपा लनयमशों कपा पपालिन ककयपा गयपा और न हसी ससंलवदपा कमे अननुसपार कफकस वमेतन पर रखपा गयपा। ससी.एम.ओ. दपारपा लनयमशों कपा खनुलिमेआम उलिसंघन ककयपा गयपा। कनुछ कमर्मचपाररयशों कमे नपाम कमेवलि ससंलवदपा शबद लिगपायपा गयपा हकै। कमर्मचपारसीयशों कभो लिगपातमे समय कभोई ससपामप पर अननुबिसंन्ध नहहीं ककयपा गयपा, ककतनमे समय कमे ससंलवदपा पर रखपा गयपा हकै सपषस नहहीं ककयपा हकै तथपा कलिमेकसर दर दकैलनक वमेतन कपा भनुगतपान ककयपा जपा रहपा हकै , नगर पररषद ककी आवशयकतपाओं कभो धयपान ममें न रखतमे हुए सथपापनपा ममें वयय कपा भसी धयपान नहहीं रखपा गयपा। नगर पररषद ककैलिपारस ममें भपारसी भ्रषसपाचपार कर लबिनपा आवशयकतपा एवसं लबिनपा कपायर्म कमे कमर्मचपाररयभो ककी भतर्मी ककी गई हकै, एवसं उकत कमर्मचपाररयशों कपा भभौलतक सतयपापन ककयपा गयपा लजसममें समे कनुछ हसी कमर्मचपारसी उपलसथत पपायमे गयमे , शमेष कमर्मचपाररयशों कमे वपारमे Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 8 ममें पसूछतपाछ ककी गई तभो पपायपा गयपा ककी वमे लनयनुलक्ति कदनपासंक समे आज कदनपासंक तक कपायपार्मलिय ममें कभसी उपलसथत हसी नहसी हुए हकै और घर बिकैठमे कपा हसी वमेतन कपा भनुगतपान ककयपा जपा रहपा हकै, जभो कमर्मचपारसी घर बिकैठमे कपा वमेतन लिमे रहमे हकै उनककी हपाजरसी कपा प्रमपाणसीकरण लनकपाय कमे अलन्धकपारसी कमे दपारपा न ककयपा जपा कर भभृतय लिमेवलि कमे कम्रचपारसी समे करपाकर वमेतन कपा भनुगतपान ककयपा जपा रहपा हकै, उकत सभसी कमर्मचपाररयशों ककी लनयनुलक्ति म.प्र. लवतत लवभपाग कपा आदमेश क्रिमपासंक 656/527/2000/ससी/4 भभोपपालि कदनपासंक 28.03.2000 कमे लनयमशों कमे लवरूद ककी गई हकै जभोकक नगर पररषद ककैलिपारस ममें लवततसीय अलनयलमततपा एवसं आरथर्मक हपालन ककी गई हकै उकत लनयनुलक्तियपासं ततकपालि प्रभपार समे लनरसतसी यभोगय हकै, एवसं लनयनुलक्ति कदनपासंक समे वतर्ममपान तक जभो वमेतन कपा भनुगतपान ककयपा गयपा हकै, वभो वससूलिसी यभोगय हकै।"
[9]. As per the aforesaid report, no procedure was adopted before engagement of petitioners in Council and only by taking applications from them, the petitioners were appointed. It was reported that there is no sanction strength available for making large scale appointments and the expenses of the Council exceeded its sanctioned budget. Shockingly it is also reported that out of all engaged persons, only few are found attending work and rest never attended the work in Council. It was also found that verification of their attendance was not done by any officer of Council but was done by Peon level employee.
[10]. Taking cognizance of the report submitted by Project Officer, the Joint Director, Urban Administration & Development Department, Gwalior/Chambal Division vide memo, dated 05.01.2023, (Annexure P/1) directed the CMO to dispense with services of these employees and also to take action against the erring officers. The matter was then placed before President in Council (in short 'PIC') in its meeting held on 21.03.2023 (Annexure R-4/4) and a resolution was passed directing Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 9 CMO to take action in the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, based upon the instructions issued by Joint Director and the resolution passed by PIC, the respondent CMO passed the impugned order, dated 10.04.2023, (Annexure P/3) whereby service of all the 109 persons has been dispensed with. Challenging these two orders, the present writ petitions have been filed.
[11]. The learned Senior Counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that the CMO is the appointing authority of petitioners and he alone is competent to take action against the petitioners. It is his submission that the CMO acted on dictates of Joint Director of Urban Administration and Development Department and has not independently applied his mind. His submission is, the CMO, having acted on directions of State Authority, the impugned action is vitiated in view of Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 and Manshukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1997)7 SCC
622. It is his further submission that the respondent no.3 was not competent to issue direction to respondent no.4/CMO. He also submitted that the impugned action taken without compliance with principles of natural justice, is ex-facie illegal and liable to be quashed by this Court.
[12]. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the PIC in its meeting held on 21.03.2023 only directed CMO to take action in accordance with law. However, the CMO without applying his mind, directly passed the impugned order of termination of petitioners' service.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 10 The learned Counsel also submitted that the petitioners were not even supplied with the report submitted by Project Officer. He also submitted that the entire action has been taken only to give reply to question raised in Legislative Assembly.
[13]. The learned Counsel for petitioners in connected petitions adopted the arguments of Shri Raghuwanshi.
[14]. Replying to the submissions made by petitioners, the learned Counsel for respondent Council submitted that the entire action of appointment of petitioners is de-hors the law inasmuch as there was no approval taken from the State Government. Referring to sanctioned Staffing pattern of Counsel (Annexure R-4/2), he submitted that there are only 52 Class-IV posts sanctioned for Council out of which 17 posts are permanent while 35 posts are contractual. He also submitted that prior to petitioners' appointment, the total expenses of council was 65% of sanctioned budget, however, as a result of their appointment, the expenses exceeded 100% of sanctioned budget. The learned Counsel also submitted that there was no requirement of making appointment that too of 109 persons.
[15]. The learned Counsel for respondent Council also submitted that the CMO is not competent to make appointment and he can do it only with the approval of PIC. Further, PIC can also approve appointment only on sanctioned posts. However, when the appointment is to be made beyond sanctioned strength, the approval of State Government is mandatory. The learned Counsel pointed out that the resolution, dated 06.12.2021, is passed only by Administrator inasmuch as the PIC was Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 11 not existent at that time. The Administrator was not competent to pass resolution.
[16]. The learned respondent's counsel also submitted that the State Government has framed rules for appointment of contractual employees vide circular, dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure R-4/5) wherein Rule 5 & 6 prescribes the procedure for making such appointments. However, the procedure was not adopted by the then CMO and the appointments were made only by receiving application from petitioners. He also submitted that when the appointment of petitioners itself was void-ab-initio, no opportunity was required to be given to them. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. reported in (2021)19 SCC 706, State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Devendra Sharma reported in (2020)15 SCC 466 and Suresh Kumar Sharma vs. Municipal Council, Ambah & Ors. reported in 1994 JLJ 479 (DB).
[17]. The learned Counsel for respondent no.1 to 3 adopted the arguments of Counsel for respondent no.4. In addition, he submitted that the approval of State Government was mandatory for making appointments in question which was not obtained by the Council. In the enquiry conducted by Project Officer of DUDA, serious financial irregularities were found. He submitted that the opportunity of hearing was not warranted when the very initiation of process of appointment is found to be illegal and is having no sanction of law.
[18]. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 12 [19]. From reading the provisions of Section 94 of the Act, it is evident that it is the Council which is competent to make appointments and not the CMO as alleged by petitioners. Further, the PIC can make appointments on contract basis by virtue of Section 94(9) of the Act, however, such appointments can also be made, based upon administrative exigency, only after obtaining permission from State Government. From the records of these cases, it is evident that no such permission was obtained from the State Government.
[20]. It is gathered from the records of these cases that as many as 109 incumbents were appointed on contract/daily wage basis. No terms & conditions of contract were laid down. No agreement was executed. The appointment orders also do not specify the time period for which such appointments are made. The respondent no.4 has taken a specific stand that there was no need of making appointments on such a large scale which exceeding the Council budget beyond 100%. There is no rebuttal of these factual assertions made in the return filed by respondent no.4.
[21]. The Project Officer of DUDA has submitted his detailed report wherein it is reported that the impugned appointments were made without permission of State Government, without following procedure for appointment, without keeping into account the budget of the Council and without there being any necessity for appointments on large scale. Alarmingly, it is also reported that only few of the appointed persons attended the duty while others have never attended office and they are being paid salary by sitting at home. This finding has been given after verification of attendance register. It is also reported that the attendance Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 13 of such employees was verified by a Peon and not by any officer of Council. All these facts indicate serious financial irregularities in the matter of appointment of these employees.
[22]. It is thus gathered from records that the appointment of petitioners was wholly de-hors the normal recruitment procedure inasmuch as no advertisement was published inviting applications from public in general. No process, even for name sake, was adopted for selection. The appointments are found to be void-ab-initio for want of permission of State Government as is required under Section 94(9) of the Act.
[23]. A serious objection has been raised by petitioners with regard to violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, it be seen that, except making a bald statement, the petitioners have not been able to show that they were appointed after following due process of law. Admittedly there is no permission obtained from the State Government which is mandatory as per Section 94(9) of the Act. Thus, the illegalities which have been found in enquiry by Project Officer can result only in termination of petitioners' services and no other option is left. Affording opportunity to petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case would have been empty formality. It is noteworthy that the writ petitioners have not challenged the finding recorded by the Project Officer or at least have not been able to establish that the findings recorded are erroneous on the facts of the case.
[24]. The Apex Court was considering similar issue in the case of Devendra Sharma (supra). While dealing with the argument regarding violation of principles of natural justice, the Apex Court held as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 14 "15.The third point for consideration was in respect of violations of principle of natural justice. This Court found that as many as 3750 candidates were appointed in totally unauthorised manner and were squatting against non-existing vacancies. A situation had arisen which required immediate action for clearing the stables and for eradicating the evil effects of these vitiated recruitments so that the Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme could be put on a sound footing. The High Court had directed the State to appoint a committee to thoroughly investigate the entire matter. Such Committee had issued public notices. 987 candidates appeared before the Committee. This Court held that the material supplied by the employees concerned was taken into consideration and then the Committee came to a firm decision to the effect that all these appointments made by Dr Mallick were vitiated from the inception and were required to be set aside and that is how the impugned termination orders were passed against the appellants. Thus, it was held that the principles of natural justice were not violated if no opportunity was given to the employees concerned to have their say in the matter before their appointments were recalled and terminated.
*** *** ***
44. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it cannot be said that the appointment of the employees in the present set of appeals were irregular appointments. Such appointments are illegal appointment in terms of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. As such appointments were made without any sanctioned post, without any advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and seek public employment and without any method of recruitment. Such appointments were back door entries, an act of nepotism and favouritism and thus from any judicial standards cannot be said to be irregular appointments but are illegal appointments in wholly arbitrary process."
[25]. Again in the case of Sudhir Kumar Singh, (supra), the Apex Court laid down following parameters while adjudicating an issue about audi alteram partem:
"42.An analysis of the aforesaid judgments thus reveals:
42.1.Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 15 breach of the audialterampartem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused. 42.2.Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest. 42.3.No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or non-denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice.
42.4.In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person. 42.5.The "prejudice" exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-
observance of natural justice."
[26]. In the present set of writ petitions also, none of the writ petitioners has dislodged the finding of illegal appointment or has established that their appointment was legal and valid in all respects. The appointments of the writ petitioners have been held to be nonest and void ab initio. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners would not be a ground to hold the impugned action vitiated.
[27]. Another argument made by learned Senior Counsel for petitioners is that the respondent no.3 had no jurisdiction to direct respondent no.4 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 16 to dispense with petitioners' service and the respondent no.4 having acted on dictates of respondent no.3, the impugned action is vitiated. He has placed strong reliance upon Apex Court judgment in the case of Gordhandas Bhanji (supra) wherein the Apex Court held that a discretion conferred on a statutory authority must be exercised by that authority itself, independently of instructions given by any other (higher) authority. For the same proposition, he also relied upon Apex Court judgment in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra).
[28]. The law laid down by Apex Court in both the aforesaid cases is not attracted in the facts of the present cases firstly because the CMO of the Council was not competent to make appointments in question. Secondly, the appointments could not have been made without permission of the State Government. Therefore, if the instructions are issued by State Government to dispense with petitioner's service, nothing wrong can be alleged in the impugned action.
[29]. Further, Section 326 of the Act confers specific power on State Government to enquire into Municipal matters. Section 326(1) of the Act being relevant is reproduced hereunder:
"326(1) The State Government may order an enquiry to be held by any officer appointed by it in this behalf into any matter concerning the Municipal administration of any Council or any matter with to which its sanction approval or consent required under this Act."
[30]. Thus, specific power is conferred on State Government to direct enquiry into the matter concerning Municipal administration or any matter to which its sanction, approval or consent is required under the Act. Since, for making contract appointment, permission of State Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23449 17 Government was required under Section 94(9) of the Act, the State Government was competent to direct Project Officer to enquire into the matter and further issuing instructions to take action as per report submitted. Thus, on this count also no illegality is found in the action of the respondent no.3.
[31]. In view of the discussion of facts and law made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned action of the respondents is legal and valid and no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The impugned memo, dated 05.01.2023, and the order, dated 10.04.2023, are upheld. The petitions are found to be without any substance and are accordingly dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE Vpn/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 9/24/2025 10:10:43 AM