Dilli Ram Dahal And Anr vs State Of Sikkim And Ors on 26 April, 2023
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners while
reiterating the facts as delineated above, contended that the
Petitioners having appeared in the same selection process as the
nineteen candidates, requested the Government for similar
treatment. That, pursuant thereto, vide Cabinet Memorandum
bearing Memo No.71/ACS/HRDD, dated 24-11-2018, as per a
policy decision of the Government, a proposal was put forth before
the Cabinet for regularisation of the ad hoc services of seventeen
Assistant Professors, to accommodate those who had put in even
less than five years of ad hoc services, in different Government
Colleges, which included the Petitioners. Eight new posts of
Assistant Professors were also proposed to be created. The
proposal was said to be concurred by the Finance, Revenue and
Expenditure Department, with due relaxation of Roster Points. The
Cabinet approved the proposals. On 05-12-2018, seventeen ad
hoc Assistant Professors, including the Petitioners, were issued
Memoranda offering appointment. However, on 17-12-2018, vide
Office Order bearing No.453/DIR(HE)HRDD, the appointments were
cancelled on the plea of being infructuous as the new posts had
allegedly not been notified. Contrarily in the Counter-Affidavit, the
State averred that the Petitioners had not completed five years of
WP(C) No.35 of 2019 4
Dr. Dilli Ram Dahal and Another vs. State of Sikkim and Others
service and there was a lack of sanctioned posts. It is the stand of
the Petitioners that the State-Respondents No.1 and 3 (hereinafter,
State-Respondents) cannot now take the plea of lack of
Notification, to deny reliefs to the Petitioners after the policy
decision and Cabinet approval. That, in fact the regularisation of
the services of the other nineteen Assistant Professors was only
upon the approval of the Hon‟ble Chief Minister of Sikkim, sans
Notification of vacancies, whereas the matter concerning the
Petitioners bore the stamp of approval of the Cabinet. Despite
these circumstances their appointments were cancelled, without
affording them an opportunity of being heard, clearly violating the
principles of natural justice. Besides, appointments based on a
policy decision which did not prescribe a selection procedure,
cannot be cancelled by an Additional Chief Secretary of the
Respondent No.1 Department.