The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the denial of a hearing before withdrawing a long-standing public appointment constitutes a fundamental violation of natural justice, rendering the order void ab initio. This judgment reinforces the non-negotiable procedural safeguard for public employees, even where substantive eligibility is later questioned.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shish Pal, was appointed as a Class-IV employee (Assistant Clerk) in Gandhi Inter College, Chhur, Meerut, in 1996 with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. He was continuously paid salary from that date until the impugned order of 20.05.2009, which withdrew his financial approval on the ground that the post should have been reserved for an Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate at the time of his appointment.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was appointed in 1996 with formal approval from the District Inspector of Schools
- He has been drawing salary continuously since 1996 without interruption
- No challenge was raised to his appointment by any OBC candidate or authority for over 13 years
- No allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or procedural irregularity were ever made against him
- On 20.05.2009, the District Inspector of Schools issued an order withdrawing financial sanction for his salary, citing reservation policy
- The order was passed without any notice, inquiry, or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
Procedural History
- 1996: Appointment made and salary payments commenced
- 20.05.2009: District Inspector of Schools issued order withdrawing financial approval
- 09.07.2009: Writ Petition filed before the Allahabad High Court; interim order passed permitting impleadment of Principal as respondent no.5 and staying the impugned order
- 09.07.2009: Court directed respondents to file counter-affidavits and listed matter for 13.08.2009
- 09.07.2009 to 04.05.2026: Petitioner continued in service under interim order, receiving salary as before
- 04.05.2026: Final hearing and disposal of writ petition
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 20.05.2009, restoration of his service, and continuation of salary payments. He also sought a declaration that his appointment was valid and that no adverse action could be taken without due process.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative authority may withdraw a long-standing appointment after 13 years of continuous service without granting the employee an opportunity of hearing, and whether such an order can be sustained under the principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel, submitted that the withdrawal of financial approval after 13 years of uninterrupted service, without any prior notice, inquiry, or hearing, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. He emphasized that the petitioner had no notice of any reservation policy conflict at the time of appointment, and no OBC candidate had ever challenged his service. He relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to argue that the right to hearing is an essential component of fair administrative action.
For the Respondent
The learned Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute that the petitioner was not heard before the order was passed. He conceded that the principles of natural justice were not followed but argued that the State retained the power to correct a reservation-related error. However, no legal authority or statutory provision was cited to justify the retrospective withdrawal without procedural safeguards.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner had been in continuous service for over 13 years, receiving salary and performing duties with the knowledge and approval of the appointing authority. The fact that no challenge was raised during this entire period, and that no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation were ever made, rendered the sudden withdrawal of approval arbitrary and unreasonable.
"An adverse order affecting service rights cannot be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, especially when the employee has been in continuous service for more than a decade."
The Court held that the doctrine of approbation and reprobation applied: having accepted the petitioner’s service for 13 years, the State could not later invalidate it on a ground that was known or ought to have been known at the time of appointment. The Court further noted that reservation policies, while constitutionally valid, cannot be applied retroactively to nullify long-standing appointments without due process.
The Court rejected the notion that administrative convenience or policy correction could override the fundamental right to a fair hearing. It emphasized that even if the original appointment was technically flawed, the remedy lay in initiating a proper inquiry with notice and hearing - not in unilateral withdrawal.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 20.05.2009 withdrawing financial approval was set aside. The petitioner’s service was restored with continuity from 1996, and he was directed to be paid all salary arrears from 20.05.2009 until the date of full compliance, at the rate prevailing prior to the impugned order. The Court clarified that this order does not preclude the respondents from initiating a proper inquiry into the reservation status of the post, provided they afford the petitioner a full opportunity of hearing before taking any adverse action.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Adverse Action Requires Notice and Hearing
- Practitioners must insist on compliance with natural justice before any termination, suspension, or withdrawal of service benefits
- Even if the original appointment is questionable, retrospective cancellation without hearing is void
- Administrative authorities cannot use policy corrections as a pretext to bypass procedural fairness
Long-Term Service Creates Legitimate Expectation
- Continuous service for over a decade creates a legitimate expectation of continuation
- Delay in challenging an appointment, especially without any prior objection, weakens the State’s case
- Courts will not permit the State to benefit from its own inaction over 13 years
Reservation Policy Cannot Override Procedural Rights
- Reservation norms must be applied prospectively or with due process
- Retroactive application to cancel appointments without inquiry is unconstitutional
- The burden lies on the State to prove fraud or misrepresentation if it seeks to annul a long-standing appointment
