Natural justice principles (such as the right to be heard) do not apply in cases where public employment is proven to have been obtained through illegal means or without a valid selection process. The High Court affirms existing Supreme Court precedent, establishing that no hearing is warranted before disengaging backdoor appointees. This decision serves as binding authority across the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh region for all service-related disputes involving illegal appointments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/222/2025 of GEETA DEVI Vs UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS |
| CNR | JKHC020056862025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu |
| Bench | CJ Court (HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent; upholds Writ Court decision |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Public Employment; Principles of Natural Justice) |
| Questions of Law | Whether an employee, whose appointment is found to be illegal and made through backdoor means, is entitled to be afforded opportunity of hearing before termination/disengagement? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Appellant was engaged as Anganwadi Helper allegedly pursuant to an advertisement dated 17.02.2005; official record and appellant’s own submissions showed she applied after the cutoff date; no evidence adduced of participation in valid selection process. State Vigilance Commission found she was not appointed pursuant to due process. Her disengagement was contested on grounds of violation of natural justice. Both the Writ Court and the Division Bench found appointment illegal and engagement void ab initio, justifying termination without hearing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in public employment/service law matters |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and, subject to confirmation, may be referenced in similar cases nation-wide on illegal appointments and natural justice |
| Distinguishes | No direct distinctions made; follows and applies multiple Supreme Court decisions |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reiterates and affirms that no right to notice or hearing arises for a disengaged employee if the initial appointment was illegal or obtained without following the due process of law.
- Principles of natural justice do not have to be followed where the illegality of appointment is clear and undisputed on record.
- Employees cannot seek equity or estoppel against the employer merely by virtue of continued illegal service.
- The burden is on claimants to establish a legal (properly selected and notified) right to appointment when seeking relief in writ jurisdiction; absence of valid selection/notification is fatal.
- The decision can be cited to counter arguments based merely on breach of natural justice where the factual foundation is one of illegal/backdoor appointment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined whether the disengagement of the appellant, whose appointment as Anganwadi Helper was found to be made through illegal/backdoor means, was vitiated by absence of hearing (natural justice).
- Review of advert dates and appellant’s own documents established that she did not apply pursuant to the official advertisement nor within prescribed timelines; appointment was found to be a “backdoor” one and illegal.
- Relying on Supreme Court judgments (Jainendra Singh, Ashwani Kumar, Y. Token Singh, Kirti Narayan Prasad), the Court held that employees appointed through fraud, illegality, or without regular process have no right to notice, hearing, or protection under Article 311.
- It was further reasoned that giving an opportunity of hearing would not cure the fundamental illegality nor change the result; principles of natural justice do not apply in isolation or to futile situations.
- Judicial precedents cited confirm that illegal appointments cannot be regularised, nor does continued service on such basis create rights in favour of the employee.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Appellant participated in selection process pursuant to advertisement notification and was engaged as Anganwadi Helper.
- Termination was ordered solely on recommendations of State Vigilance Commission, without being heard, violating principles of natural justice.
- Procedural lapses, if any, in recruitment should not be penalised against the appellant.
- State Vigilance Commission’s recommendation was only recommendatory and not adjudicatory; appellant had no opportunity to contest before the Commission.
Respondent (State)
- Appellant was terminated as per State Vigilance Commission’s findings in a complaint regarding backdoor appointments.
- Appellant neither applied for the post nor participated in any selection process as required.
Factual Background
The appellant was engaged as Anganwadi Helper at Anganwadi Centre, Malti, allegedly after responding to an official advertisement in 2005. However, records revealed her application was submitted in March 2006, after the cutoff. A State Vigilance Commission inquiry found she did not participate in the valid selection process. Relying on the Commission’s report, the authorities directed her termination in May 2014. The appellant’s writ petition challenging her termination for violating natural justice was dismissed by the Writ Court, leading to this intra-court appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Article 311 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice, especially audi alteram partem.
- The Court applied a narrow interpretation—protection under Article 311 and procedural fairness is not available where appointment itself is void ab initio due to illegality or fraud.
- The selection process was considered vis-à-vis constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16, requiring open, competitive selection for public employment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- The judgment was delivered by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, with HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurring.
- There are no dissenting opinions; the bench was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- No novel procedural rules or guidelines were set in this judgment.
- The Court emphasized that in cases of clear illegality, denial of notice or opportunity of hearing is not a procedural defect where the result is a foregone conclusion.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and affirms established Supreme Court precedent on effect of illegal/backdoor appointments and the limits of principles of natural justice in such cases.