Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. Subsequently, in February 2020, fresh show cause notices were issued asking them to furnish the following i. The copy of the advertisement seeking applications, ii. Call letters issued to them for appearing before the interview board, iii. Copy of the select list.

iv. Copy of the original appointment letters.

v. Copy of SIU (Finance Department) approval for drawl of pay and allowances.

20. The petitioners filed similar replies to the show-cause notices and maintained that the documents mentioned at Sl. No. i, ii, and iii are not available with them; they are in the Government record, as these are official documents and ought to be maintained by the competent authorities. As regards SIU approvals, they took a stand that the requirement of SIU approval is for drawing of pay and allowances, and the same are not expected to be in the possession of the notice; however, payment of regular salary presumes that all necessary approvals were there, otherwise, the competent authorities could not have released their salaries regularly.

24. As regards the lack of SIU approval, it is argued that, under the Notification dated 04.07.2005, the requirement for SIU approval took effect from 21.07.2005. Therefore, such an office memorandum did not exist when the selection process commenced.

25. Alternatively, it is argued that there is no material to suggest that the SIU had at any point in time opined that the posts to which the appellants were appointed are not required and should be abolished.

26. As regards the authority of the Joint Director of Health Services to issue advertisement and make appointments, it is argued that there is no specific rule indicating that advertisement cannot be issued by the Joint Director of Health Services inasmuch as according to them, it is an admitted position that in terms of Section 2(a) of the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment of Class-III and Class-IV Posts) Rules, 1997, the Joint Director is the appointing authority.

Page No.# 47/53

75. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General, founded on a ban on appointments or absence of prior approval, must also be examined from this perspective.

76. The argument that appointments were made during a ban period or without prior approval, including SIU concurrence, stands even on a weaker footing.

77. A ban on recruitment or an internal requirement of prior approval is an instruction intended to regulate administrative discretion. It does not operate as a statutory prohibition rendering every appointment made in breach thereof a nullity in the eyes of the law. Where the administration itself proceeds to make appointments, posts employees against sanctioned vacancies and releases their salaries year after year, the State cannot, after prolonged acquisition turn around and contend that the appointments were void from inception. Such an approach would permit the State to benefit from its own wrong and would offend the principle of non-arbitrariness that permeates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

88. In Vinod Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court also clarified that violation of internal guidelines, executive instructions, or approval mechanisms, however mandatory, they may be for administration, does not automatically render the appointment illegal vis-à-vis the employee. The Court held that Page No.# 51/53 such requirements are intended to discipline the administration, not to serve as a hidden condition precedent that can be invoked retrospectively to the detriment of employees. This reasoning directly addresses the state's contention in the present cases regarding the absence of an SIU approval, the appointment during a ban period, and the alleged lack of authority of the Joint Directors, all of which lie within the employer's administrative domain.