The Gauhati High Court has delivered a landmark ruling affirming that long-serving government employees cannot be terminated for administrative irregularities attributable to the State, absent any allegation of fraud or malpractice. The judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that the State cannot benefit from its own procedural failures over a period of more than a decade and then seek to undo appointments with retrospective effect.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, 107 Grade-IV employees across Assam, were appointed between 2004 and 2011 as Surveillance Workers and other support staff in the Health and Family Welfare Department. Their appointments followed public advertisements issued by Joint Directors of Health Services in districts including Goalpara, Dibrugarh, and Sivasagar. They were inducted into service, assigned duties, and received regular salaries for 14 to 20 years without interruption.
Procedural History
- 2004 - 2005: Appointments made via public advertisements and selection processes
- 2017: State constituted a Screening Committee to review appointments amid allegations of irregularities
- 2019: Show-cause notices issued citing vague deficiencies without disclosing Screening Committee reports
- 2019 - 2020: Termination orders passed after petitioners failed to produce documents not in their possession
- 2020 - 2023: Multiple writ petitions filed; High Court repeatedly directed disclosure of specific deficiencies, which were ignored
- 2023: Single Judge upheld terminations, leading to these intra-court appeals
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought reinstatement with continuity of service, quashing of termination orders, and recognition of their long-standing service as legitimate. They argued that the State’s failure to maintain records and its own procedural lapses could not justify termination after 14 years of uninterrupted service.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether procedural irregularities in the appointment process - attributable solely to the State - can justify termination of employees who have served continuously for over a decade without fraud, and whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the failure to disclose the Screening Committee’s findings.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Siraj Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, and Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board to argue that appointments made through public advertisements, followed by years of continuous service and salary disbursement, cannot be declared void ab initio. They contended that the State’s own failure to maintain records, issue proper delegation orders, or obtain SIU approvals cannot be visited upon employees. They further emphasized that the show-cause notices were vague, the Screening Committee report was withheld, and the termination orders showed no application of mind - violating natural justice.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the Joint Directors lacked delegated authority to appoint Grade-IV staff under the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment of Class-III and Class-IV Posts) Rules, 1997. It claimed appointments were made during a government ban on recruitment, without prior approval from the State-Level Empowered Committee or SIU, and with improperly constituted selection committees. Relying on Uma Devi v. State of Karnataka, it contended that all such appointments were void ab initio and could not be regularised, regardless of length of service.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the constitutional and jurisprudential framework governing public employment. It rejected the State’s contention that every deviation from internal administrative protocols renders an appointment void ab initio. The Court held that administrative irregularities, such as lack of delegation, non-compliance with internal instructions, or failure to obtain SIU approval, are matters within the State’s exclusive domain and cannot be used to penalize employees who had no control over them.
"The fault lies squarely with the administration. A candidate seeking appointment to a Grade-IV post cannot be imputed with either knowledge of, or responsibility for, compliance with such internal administrative protocols."
The Court distinguished Uma Devi as a case addressing systemic backdoor appointments and fraud, not procedural lapses in transparent processes. It emphasized that Uma Devi does not mandate blanket invalidation of appointments made through public advertisements, especially where the State has acquiesced for over a decade. The Court cited Siraj Ahmed and Vinod Kumar to affirm that legitimate expectation arises when the State pays salaries, assigns duties, and treats employees as regular staff for years.
The Court further held that the termination process was vitiated by a gross breach of natural justice. The show-cause notices failed to specify deficiencies, and the Screening Committee report - central to the allegations - was never disclosed. The termination orders did not engage with the petitioners’ replies, rendering the process arbitrary and unconstitutional under Article 14.
The Court concluded that the State’s conduct - paying salaries for 14 - 20 years, assigning critical public health duties, and remaining silent until administrative convenience dictated otherwise - constituted an estoppel against retrospective invalidation.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Court held that procedural irregularities attributable to the State cannot justify termination after prolonged service without fraud, and that natural justice was violated by non-disclosure of the Screening Committee report. The termination orders were quashed, and the petitioners were ordered reinstated with continuity of service for seniority and pension purposes, though without back wages.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Termination Requires Specific, Disclosed Grounds
- Practitioners must challenge termination orders that rely on vague or undisclosed deficiencies
- Show-cause notices must specify exact statutory or procedural violations
- Withholding screening or verification reports violates Article 14 and natural justice
Long Service Creates Legitimate Expectation
- Employees serving 10+ years under public advertisement and salary disbursement cannot be terminated for administrative lapses
- The State’s acquiescence over time operates as an estoppel against retrospective invalidation
- Courts will not permit the State to benefit from its own procedural failures
Uma Devi Is Not a Blanket Tool for Termination
-
Uma Devi applies only to fraudulent, backdoor, or non-transparent appointments
-
Transparent appointments with long service are protected even if minor procedural deviations occurred
-
Courts must distinguish between illegal appointments and irregular appointments
-
Practitioners should argue that administrative non-compliance ≠ legal nullity when the employee is blameless
-
In service disputes, focus on the State’s conduct over time, not just technical rule breaches
-
Always demand disclosure of all reports and materials relied upon in termination decisions
