Summary
Bihar Health Department appointees sought reinstatement or regularisation after scrutiny classified their appointments as forged or illegal. The Court distinguished merely irregular appointments from appointments made through forged eligibility documents, incompetent authorities, absent sanctioned posts or an arbitrary process denying equal opportunity. It upheld termination of the latter appointments and rejected long service as a basis to regularise them.
Issues
- Whether the disputed appointments were merely irregular or illegal under Umadevi.
- Whether long service or a claimed appointment power supported reinstatement or retirement benefits.
Held
- Forgery in the basic educational qualification required for nursing training vitiated appointment even on the argument that the later nursing certificate itself was genuine. The three appeals in that category were dismissed. (¶ 19)
- The applicable executive instructions and Health Manual did not authorise Dr. Mallick or the Regional Deputy Director to make the appointments claimed. Limited emergency powers against sanctioned posts did not validate the mass appointments in issue. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34)
- Appointments without sanctioned posts, advertisement, opportunity for eligible candidates or any proper recruitment method were illegal backdoor entries, rather than merely irregular appointments eligible for the limited Umadevi exception. The separate ninety-one cases classified as irregular were already continuing in service. (¶¶ 20, 22, 33, 38, 44)
- Length of service, including service exceeding twenty-five years, did not legalise the original appointment or supply entitlement to regularisation and consequential pension benefits. Statutory service entitlements depend on a lawful appointment. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44)
- The prior decisions concerning these recruitments and the individual scrutiny findings supplied no basis for the High Court’s reinstatement orders. The contrary High Court decision of 24 September 2014 was upheld. (¶¶ 18, 22, 38, 45, 46)
Result
The State’s appeals were allowed and the High Court’s 12 July 2011 and similar orders set aside. The candidates’ appeals against the 24 September 2014 decision were dismissed, as were the three specified appeals involving forged eligibility qualifications. Pending applications were disposed of.