The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that ratification of an appointment by the competent authority cures procedural irregularities in the selection process, especially where the appointee has left prior employment in reliance on the appointment. The judgment underscores that post-hoc challenges to appointments, absent allegations of malafide or favoritism and without participation by aggrieved candidates, cannot justify termination after service has commenced.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Upadhyay, was employed as a Manager in the HRMS Department of State Bank of India. On 07.09.2018, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Indian Institute of Information Technology and Management, Gwalior (hereinafter 'Institute'), issued an advertisement for one post of Deputy Registrar and two posts of Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar position carried a pay scale of PB-3 (Rs.15,600 - 39,100) plus Grade Pay of Rs.5,400. The petitioner applied for the Assistant Registrar post and was selected following a multi-stage process. He was appointed vide order dated 20.02.2019, with a two-year probationary period extendable subject to performance assessment. He joined the post on 01.06.2019, having resigned from his position at SBI.
Key Facts
- The Institute's advertisement (Clause 12) stated that a written test would be a qualifying examination, with only those scoring the minimum benchmark being called for interview.
- Out of 227 applications, 216 were shortlisted based on eligibility criteria.
- A written test was conducted on 25.12.2018; 142 candidates appeared. A qualifying cut-off of 60% was fixed.
- The petitioner scored exactly 60% (12th rank among 13 qualified candidates).
- An interview committee, chaired by Prof. Rajendra Sahu (then in-charge Director), interviewed the 13 candidates and selected two, including the petitioner.
- The appointment was approved by the then Director and communicated on 20.02.2019.
- The petitioner was granted pay protection, including 10 advance increments, by the regular Director.
- The regular Director demitted office on 31.07.2019; Prof. Rajendra Sahu assumed charge as in-charge Director.
- Complaints were received alleging irregularities in selection and pay protection.
- A five-member committee, chaired by Prof. Sahu, submitted a report on 28.07.2020 recommending reconsideration of pay protection and selection.
- On 24.12.2020, the in-charge Director withheld pay protection and extended probation indefinitely.
- A second four-member committee, again chaired by Prof. Sahu, submitted a report on 22.02.2022 recommending cancellation of appointment due to alleged defects in selection committee constitution and failure to prepare a cumulative merit list.
- The Board of Governors (BoG) had ratified the petitioner’s appointment in its 43rd meeting held on 10.07.2019.
- A show cause notice dated 17.03.2026 was issued to the petitioner questioning his selection and pay protection claim.
Procedural History
- 07.09.2018: Advertisement issued for Assistant Registrar post.
- 25.12.2018: Written test conducted; petitioner qualified with 60% marks.
- 01.02.2019: Interview conducted; petitioner selected.
- 20.02.2019: Appointment order issued; petitioner joined on 01.06.2019.
- 10.07.2019: BoG ratified appointment.
- 28.07.2020: First committee report recommending reconsideration of pay protection.
- 24.12.2020: In-charge Director withheld pay protection and extended probation.
- 01.02.2022: Second committee constituted.
- 22.02.2022: Second committee report recommending cancellation of appointment.
- 23.03.2022: BoG considered report but deferred decision due to pending litigation.
- 14.09.2021: Order extending probation till further orders issued.
- 17.03.2026: Show cause notice issued.
- 2021: Writ Petition No. 4714/2021 filed challenging withholding of pay protection.
- 2021: Writ Petition No. 21255/2021 filed challenging probation extension.
- 09.04.2026: Arguments concluded.
- 20.04.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that his appointment was validly ratified by the BoG; the selection process followed the advertisement; pay protection was lawfully granted; no performance deficiency was recorded; extension of probation and withholding of pay were arbitrary, non-speaking, and violated natural justice. He relied on Sanjeev Yadav v. LNPE and Pannalal Choudhury.
Respondents: Contended that the selection committee was irregularly constituted; the written test was not properly weighted; the appointment was never ratified by the BoG; the in-charge Director was competent to act; and the petitioner’s pay protection claim was not supported by any formal order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Declaration that withholding of pay protection is illegal.
- Restoration of pay protection with interest.
- Quashing of the order extending probation indefinitely.
- Confirmation of service based on performance appraisal.
- Restraint on further inquiry into his appointment.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether a selection process tainted by procedural irregularities can be validated by subsequent ratification by the competent authority? (2) Whether an appointee who has left prior employment can have his appointment cancelled years later on grounds not raised by any aggrieved candidate? (3) Whether withholding pay protection and extending probation indefinitely without a speaking order or performance appraisal violates principles of natural justice?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Pannalal Choudhury and Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil to argue that ratification by the BoG on 10.07.2019 cured any defect in the constitution of the selection committee. He emphasized that the written test was a qualifying test, not a merit-determining one, and that the petitioner’s selection was fair and unchallenged by any other candidate. He cited Sanjeev Yadav v. LNPE to argue that post-facto cancellation of appointments after the appointee has materially altered his position by leaving prior employment amounts to estoppel. He further contended that withholding pay protection and extending probation without a speaking order or opportunity of hearing violated Article 14 and Article 21.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel argued that the selection committee was improperly constituted under Rule 9(5) of the Statute, as the Director had delegated his chairmanship to the in-charge Director without proper authority. He contended that the committee’s failure to prepare a cumulative merit list and the petitioner’s low written test score rendered the selection flawed. He asserted that no formal order on pay protection had been passed by the BoG and that the in-charge Director was competent to act under Section 24(4) of the Act. He further argued that the matter was sub-judice and no final decision had been taken, making the petitions premature.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the selection process, the doctrine of ratification, and the principles of natural justice. It held that the written test, as per Clause 12 of the advertisement, was a qualifying test, not a merit-based filter. The petitioner’s score of 60% met the benchmark, entitling him to interview. The fact that other candidates scored higher was legally irrelevant.
"The approach of the Chairperson of the committee is, therefore, wholly misconceived and is not acceptable."
The Court emphasized that the appointment was ratified by the BoG on 10.07.2019, as evidenced by the agenda and minutes. Citing Pannalal Choudhury and Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil, the Court reaffirmed that ratification retrospectively validates an act performed by an incompetent authority, provided the ratifying body is competent. The Court rejected the argument that ratification was absent, noting that the BoG’s approval was explicit and documented.
The Court further held that the petitioner had acted in good faith, leaving a secure position at SBI to join the Institute. No other candidate challenged the selection, and no malafide or bias was alleged. The Court drew a parallel with Sanjeev Yadav, where the Court held that an appointment cannot be cancelled after years of service merely due to technical irregularities, especially when the appointee has altered his position in reliance on the appointment.
Regarding pay protection, the Court noted that while the regular Director had granted it, no formal order had been passed by the BoG. The Court declined to direct restoration of pay protection at this stage, observing that the matter was pending consideration under the show cause notice.
On probation extension, the Court found the order dated 14.09.2021 to be non-speaking and indefinite, violating principles of natural justice. The Court held that confirmation of service must be based on performance appraisal, not on the recommendations of committees tainted by conflict of interest.
"The petitioner's position cannot be altered now when he has materially changed his position based upon his selection by the Institute unless the illegality is attributed to the petitioner himself."
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in part. The Court:
- Stopped and restrained the respondents from enquiring into the validity of the petitioner’s selection and appointment.
- Disposed of W.P. No. 4714/2021 with liberty to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 17.03.2026; the competent authority shall pass a speaking order on pay protection within 8 weeks of receipt of reply.
- Disposed of W.P. No. 21255/2021 with direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s confirmation based on performance appraisal, un-influenced by prior committee reports, and to pass a speaking order within 8 weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Ratification Cures Procedural Defects
- Practitioners must now argue that ratification by the competent authority (e.g., BoG, Board of Directors) retrospectively validates appointments even if the initial selection process had procedural flaws.
- The burden shifts to the employer to prove that ratification was absent or that the defect was so fundamental as to render the appointment void ab initio.
Post-Joining Challenges Are Estopped
- If an appointee leaves prior employment in reliance on a selection, courts will not permit cancellation of appointment years later on technical grounds, especially when no aggrieved candidate challenged the process.
- Employers must raise objections during the selection process or within a reasonable time; silence after appointment constitutes acquiescence.
Probation Extensions Require Speaking Orders
- Indefinite extension of probation without performance appraisal or a speaking order violates natural justice.
- All orders affecting service conditions must be reasoned, time-bound, and based on objective criteria - not committee recommendations tainted by bias or conflict.
Pay Protection Requires Formal Authorization
- Informal grants of pay protection by individual officers do not bind the organization unless ratified by the appointing authority.
- Employees must seek formal orders; reliance on administrative notes is insufficient for legal enforcement.
