Telangana High Court
Syed Sakheer Ahmed And 43 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 10 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
W.P.Nos.41060, 27599 & 31837 of 2022 and 959 of 2024,
C.C.Nos.1220 of 2024 and 392 & 461 of 2025
AND
REVIEW I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.36171 of 2022
Dated 10th July, 2026.
BETWEEN:
Syed Sakheer Ahmed and others
... Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department
Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
... Respondents
COMMOMN ORDER:
The lis involved in these writ petitions and contempt cases is
inter-connected. Hence, they are analogously heard together and are
taken up for disposal by way of this common order.
2. W.P.Nos.31837 and 36171 of 2022 are filed seeking the same
relief, i.e., to declare the action of the respondents in not disbursing
2
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
the salaries to the petitioners from February, 2022, as per their
appointment orders dated 14.02.2022, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of
principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, and consequently, to direct the respondents to
disburse the salaries of the petitioners from their respective dates of
joining into duty, as per the bills prepared and sent by the District
Treasury Officer, Nirmal District.
3. W.P.No.41060 of 2022 is filed seeking to declare and set aside
the proceedings issued by the District Collector, Nirmal District, vide
No.MCN/C1/393/2021 dated 15.07.2022, whereby, the services of
these petitioners were terminated, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of
principles of natural justice, besides violative of Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India and the CCA Rules.
4. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Municipal Commissioner,
Nirmal Municipality, in resubmitting the salary bills of the petitioners
before the District Treasure Officer, Nirmal District, W.P.No.959 of
2024 is filed.
5. C.C.No.1220 of 2024 is filed alleging willful disobedience of the
interim order passed by this Court dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.No.959 of
2024, while C.C.Nos.392 and 461 of 2025 are filed alleging willful
3
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
disobedience of the interim order dated 13.09.2022 in W.P.No.31837
of 2022, and the order dated 20.09.2022 in W.P.No.36171 of 2022,
respectively.
6. W.P.No.27599 of 2022 has been filed by certain individuals,
challenging the action of the District Collector, Nirmal, in appointing
the writ petitioners in W.P.No.41060 of 2022, as Public Health
Worker/Non-Public Health Worker in the Nirmal Municipal Council,
and to direct respondent No.3 to engage the services of the eligible
persons after following the due procedure of law.
7. Heard Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel, representing
Sri G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in all writ
petitions and contempt cases, except W.P.No.27599 of 2022, the
learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the
official respondents, and Sri K.K. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel
for the petitioners in W.P.No.27599 of 2022.
8. For the purpose of convenience and better appreciation of the
matter, W.P.No.41060 of 2022 is taken as the lead case and it is
adjudicated hereunder.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that
respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.525 dated 20.07.2021, for
4
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
delegation of powers to respondent No.2 for appointment of last grade
services, including Public Health Workers, Non-Public Health
Workers, and other equal cadres in Urban Local Bodies, and to notify
the vacancies through District Employment Exchange, calling for the
list of candidates under Section 45 of the Telangana Municipal Act,
2019. As such, in pursuance thereof, respondent Nos.2 and 3 issued
a Notification dated 28.12.2021, for appointments to the aforesaid
posts under general recruitment. Accordingly, a letter was sent to the
District Employment Exchange, Nirmal and Utnoor, to finalize the
names of the unemployed individuals, who have registered their
names at the District Employment Office. In pursuance thereof, a list
of (978) candidates was furnished, out of which, (233) eligible persons
attended the interview, and (44) individuals, i.e., the petitioners
herein were successfully selected for their respective posts. It was
submitted that the entire process of selection was thoroughly
monitored by respondent No.2 and other higher officials periodically.
10. It was further submitted that the petitioners were issued with
the appointment orders vide proceedings No.C1/393/2021 dated
14.02.2022. Accordingly, some of the petitioners joined duty on
16.02.2022, while others joined on 23.02.2022. Since then, the
petitioners have been discharging the duties allotted to them, without
5
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
any remarks. It was submitted that respondent No.3 had also
prepared a salary bill of the petitioners as per their pay scale, but the
same have not been processed since February, 2021, for some or the
other reasons, in spite of generating employee IDs. As such, the
petitioners submitted their representation to all the respondents on
14.06.2022, but the same was kept pending. Therefore, some of the
petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by way of filing
W.P.No.31837 of 2022, wherein, this Court passed an interim order
dated 13.09.2022, directing the authorities to pay the salaries to the
petitioners, subject to their discharge of services and termination, if
any. Similarly, the other petitioners have filed W.P.No.36171 of 2022,
which was disposed of vide order dated 20.09.2022, directing the
respondents to pay the salaries to the petitioners, if their services
have not been terminated. However, instead of complying with and
implementing the orders of this Court, the authorities are relying on
the impugned proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 15.07.2022,
whereby, they claim the services of the petitioners have been
terminated. However, the petitioner were neither put on notice nor
were they afforded an opportunity of hearing, before such a decision,
and the said order was also communicated to the petitioners only on
6
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
05.11.2022. It was submitted that the said action taken by the
respondents is only an afterthought to cover up their mistakes.
11. It was further submitted that the petitioners herein are Last
Grade Service employees and without any source of income, except
their salaries which is also not being paid to them, their day to day
lives are turning miserable and are unable to maintain their families.
However, despite the orders of this Court, directing the respondents to
pay the salaries to the petitioners, deliberately, the respondents
issued a letter in the style of an order, with a mala fide intention, to
circumvent the orders of this Court. It was submitted that no
termination order was passed by following the due process of law,
including that of framing the charges, conducting an enquiry,
affording an opportunity of personal hearing, etc. Further, the
impugned order passed by respondent No.2 referred to the Circular
vide ROC.No.199024/2021/M3 dated 10.08.2021, which runs
contrary to G.O.Rt.No.525 dated 20.07.2021. As such, the impugned
order is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, non-est in the eye of law, and
violative of principles of natural justice besides violative of Articles 14
and 20 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, learned Senior
Counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the order passed
by respondent No.2 dated 15.07.2022 and to forthwith pay and
7
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
continue paying the salaries to the petitioners from February, 2022,
without any interruption.
12. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the respondents, on filing of a counter
affidavit, submitted that the entire recruitment process, including the
appointment of the petitioners, is vitiated by grave irregularities. It
was submitted that the State Government had earlier issued
G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995, making it mandatory for the
recruitment agencies to obtain concurrence from the Finance
Department of the State Government and requested not to receive any
requisitions for any vacancy unless it is received from the Finance
Department. However, in the present case, no such financial
concurrence was obtained before initiating the recruitment process.
13. It was further submitted that G.O.Rt.No.525 dated 20.07.2021
delegated the powers to the District Collectors to fill up the vacancies
in the Last Grade Services, duly notifying such vacancies to the
concerned District Employment Exchange and to undertake the
selection and appointment process, subject to the orders issued by
the Government from time to time. However, no vacancies shall be
notified without prior financial approval of the State Government and
8
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
no recruitment process shall be undertaken without notifying the
vacancies through District Employment Exchange and other known
modes, and as well as the selection process, either by way of a written
examination or interview. However, in the present case, the then
Municipal Commissioner had approached the office of the District
Collector for recruitment of Public Health Workers and other Last
Grade Service posts, and even without notifying the said vacancies in
any known mode, requisitions were sent to the District Employment
Exchange to provide information of suitable candidates, which is
wholly contrary to G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995. In spite of the
same, the District Employment Exchange had sent the details of (880)
candidates for (44) vacancies under various categories. As soon as
the illegalities came to the light of the District Collector, he had
immediately taken steps and terminated the services of all the
petitioners vide impugned proceedings dated 15.07.2022.
14. It was further submitted that the entire recruitment file is
missing in the office, and thus, a police compliant was also lodged
vide FIR No.240/2024. Further, as per the available records, it was
noticed that no concurrence/approval from the Finance Department
was obtained; no requisition was also sent by the Finance
Department to the District Employment Exchange; and no notification
9
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
was ever published. Further, a total of (978) individuals were issued
with call letters, whereas, the sponsored candidates list from the
Employment Exchange included only (880) candidates. It was also
found that out of the (44) selected candidates, the names of (35)
candidates were not at all found in the sponsored list. Further, three
individuals who were given appointment orders enrolled themselves
with the employment exchange after the sponsors list was submitted.
It was also noticed that many of the petitioners are the children and
close relatives of the Municipal Council Chairman, Ward Members,
Staff of the Collectorate Office and other offices, none of whose names
were enrolled with the Employment Exchange. As such, since the
entire recruitment was undertaken in contravention of the
Government instructions and contrary to the constitutional scheme of
employment, the present impugned termination order dated
15.07.2022 has been issued.
15. It was further submitted that the Government had issued
G.O.Rt.No.525 dated 20.07.2021, directing the District Collector to
submit and take necessary action in respect of all such pending
proposals of Compassionate/Regular appointments of last grade
services, including Public Health Workers & Non-Public Health
Workers, and other equal cadres in the Municipalities. Subsequently,
10
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
circular instructions were issued vide ROC No.199024/2021/M3 on
10.08.2021, to the effect that the appointments were to be made after
obtaining prior permission from the Government. Further, even as
per the Act 2 of 1994, all appointments are to be made after obtaining
financial concurrence only. However, by suppressing the existence of
the subsequent circular and without placing the same before the
competent authorities, respondent No.3 had irregularly circulated the
file for appointment against existing vacancies. Consequently, a
notification was issued on 28.12.2021 for appointments to Last Grade
Services under general recruitment and a letter was addressed to the
District Employment Exchange, Nirmal and Utnoor, to finalize the
names of the unemployed individuals who registered their names.
Thereafter, appointment orders were issued by the then District
Collector.
16. It was submitted that the entire process of selection and
appointment was undertaken illegally, and thus, the termination
proceedings were rightly issued on 15.07.2022, in order to rectify the
mistake occurred. A detailed enquiry was conducted in the matter
and a report was sent to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal
Administration vide erstwhile District Collector, Nirmal, vide
Lr.Rc.No.AO/54/2023 dated 03.06.2024.
11
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
17. It was submitted that since the entire process of appointment
was found to be illegal, made on account of fraud and
misrepresentation, under due influence, the earlier orders of this
Court for payment of salaries to the petitioners could not be complied
with, as no financial approval was received in respect of their
recruitment. Further, out of the (44) petitioners, (13) were previously
working as Public Health Workers on outsourcing basis, who are still
continued on outsourcing basis and are being paid the
salaries/honorarium regularly till date, and therefore, the illegally
appointed individuals are not entitled to claim any salary. However,
the petitioners have filed two contempt cases in C.C.Nos.2158 and
2321 of 2022, alleging disobedience of the orders of this Court dated
20.09.2022 and 13.09.2022, in W.P.Nos.36171 and 31837 of 2022
respectively. In compliance with the order dated 10.03.2023, passed
in therein, the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration
and Urban Development, Telangana, conducted a detailed enquiry
and submitted his report dated 04.09.2023. It was further submitted
that the then District Collector, Nirmal, has also directed the
Additional Collector (LB), Nirmal, to conduct a detailed enquiry into
the process of appointment of (44) Last Grade Service employees, and
in pursuance thereof, the Additional Collector (LB) conducted an
12
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
enquiry and submitted his detailed report on 31.05.2024, and opined
that the entire recruitment process was carried out under undue
influence in a fraudulent manner and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.214
dated 08.05.2001, G.O.Rt.No.525 dated 20.07.2021, G.O.Ms.No.275
dated 14.12.1995, and also violation of the employment rules as per
G.O.Ms.No.193 dated 27.06.1994. The said report was submitted to
the Commissioner and District Collector, Nirmal District, vide
Rc.No.AO/54/2023 dated 03.06.2024. It was also submitted that the
entire recruitment files were missing, due to which, all these aspects
could not be brought to the notice of this Court in a timely manner.
Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
18. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that G.O.Ms.No.275 issued by the Government has given independent
power to the District Collector alone to appoint the employees, and it
is his duty to take permission from the Finance Department, if
required. Further, even as per G.O.Rt.No.525, the District Collector
alone is empowered to select and appoint the employees. As such,
respondent No.2-District Collector has selected the petitioners herein
as per the procedure laid down and issued them appointment orders.
Accordingly, all the (44) petitioners joined duty, which is within the
knowledge of the District Collector, and they are continuously
13
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
discharging their duties, for which, the Commissioner has also sent
the bills to the District Treasury Officer and got the petitioners issued
with Employee ID, CPS and PRAN. As such, there is no misguiding
the authorities as alleged by the respondents. It was further
submitted that obtaining financial approval from the State
Government is a formal act, as G.O.Rt.No.525 authorizes the District
Collector fully to appoint the employees. As such, there is no
ambiguity or irregularity in appointing the petitioners.
19. It was further submitted that the respondents have deliberately
and intentionally violated the earlier orders passed by this Court, and
are trying to misguide this Court by stating that except the (13)
erstwhile outsourcing employees, the other petitioners have not
discharged duties even for a day, which is wholly incorrect. Despite
the direction of this Court to produce the recruitment file, the
respondents state that it went missing, which clearly means that they
are so negligent and are deliberately harassing the petitioners,
without paying them salaries. It was further submitted that the
petitioners had no knowledge about the call of information that the
District Collector had written a letter dated 28.12.2021, and in turn,
the Employment Officer has given a clearance for the (44) candidates,
and after a gap of three years, respondents are taking a new set up of
14
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
defense, without having a file. It was further submitted that the
entire recruitment process was undertaken as per the procedure, and
simply to satisfy the political bosses, the respondents are trying to set
up a false defense after utilizing the services of the petitioners for so
many years. As such, the issuance of the impugned termination
order dated 15.07.2022 is wholly illegal and arbitrary.
20. It was further submitted that the District Collector, being the
head of the District Administration, cannot blame the subordinates by
simply stating that they have misguided, and the entire recruitment
process was undertaken by respondent Nos.2 and 3, and thus,
respondent No.4 has no big role in the appointments of the
petitioners. All the (44) petitioners have also joined duties and
continuously discharged their services, for which, an attendance
register was also maintained by respondent No.4. It was further
submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court directing to
verify if the petitioners are discharging their services or not, the
Secretary to Government filed a factual report, stating that the
petitioners are discharging their duties as on date, and thus, this
Court had also given another chance of complying with the earlier
order within (15) days, which has not been complied with till date.
Further, the entire file is with the office of the District Collector, but
15
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
intentionally and deliberately, the respondents filed a counter
affidavit, stating that the entire file was misplaced, with the sole
intention to overcome their irregularities. Only after a gap of three
years, an officer has been appointed and a false report was prepared,
stating that the appointment of the employees was not as per the
procedure, but the District Collector had the ample power to rectify
the same, even after initiating the recruitment process. It was further
submitted that the relationship of some of the petitioners with the
employees of the Collector's office and the Municipal office is not a
valid ground to terminate the services of the petitioner. In fact, the
Additional Collector (LB) happens to be a close relative of respondent
No.3, who prepared a false report only to aid respondent No.3. Thus,
it was once again prayed to allow the writ petition.
21. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material
available on record.
22. Admittedly, the State Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.525
dated 20.07.2021, delegating powers to the District Collectors for
appointment to Last Grade Service posts, including Public Health and
16
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
Non Public Health Workers and other equal cadres in Urban Local
Bodies. The following is a relevant extract of the said G.O.
"In the circumstances reported by Director Municipal
Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad in the letter read above,
Government after careful examination of the matter hereby
delegate the powers of recruitment to the Last Grade Services
including Public Health and Non Public Health Workers and
other equalling cadres in Urban Local Bodies, to the District
Collectors concerned keeping in view of the section 45 (ii) of
the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, by following the due
procedure as detailed below:
"Whenever the vacancies arise in the Last Grade
Services including PH and Non-PH Workers and
equalling cadres in Urban Local Bodies, the concerned
Municipal Commissioner shall notify the vacancies to
the concerned District Employment Exchange through
the District Collector, in turn by virtue of appointing
authority the District Collector shall make a due process
of selection and issue appointment orders to the
selected candidates.""
23. In pursuance thereof, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have initiated the
process of recruitment by issuing a Notification for Direct Recruitment
vide File No.C1/393/2021 dated 28.12.2021, and called for list of
eligible candidates from the District Employment Exchanges, Nirmal
and Utnoor. In turn, the District Employment Exchange and the
Deputy Secretary, Tribal Welfare, ITDA, has furnished a list of (978)
candidates to the District Collector, Nirmal, and on receipt of the
same, call letters were issued to all the individuals, instructing them
17
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
to appear for interview on 14.02.2022, along their original certificates
and photocopies of the certificates duly attested by a gazetted officer
for verification and scrutiny by the Committee. Thereafter, the
authorities have selected (44) individuals as per the Last Grade
Service Rules in force and issued order of appointment to all the
selected candidates on 14.02.2022 vide proceeding No.C1/393/2021,
by the District Collector, Nirmal. Accordingly, all the (44) individuals
reported and joined duty on 16.02.2022 and 23.02.2022. However,
since they have not been paid with the salaries, some of the
petitioners filed W.P.No.31837 of 2022, wherein, the following interim
order dated 13.09.2022 was passed.
"In view of the above, this Court deems it fit and proper to
direct the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to verify whether the
petitioners have been discharging services as claimed by them
and whether their services have been terminated by passing
orders if any. Thereafter, the respondents are directed to pay
salaries to the petitioners if their services have not been
terminated and they have been rendering services. The entire
process shall be carried out within a period of three (3) weeks
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."
24. Likewise, the other petitioners who were also not paid with the
salaries have filed W.P.No.36171 of 2022, which was disposed of vide
order dated 20.09.2022, with the following direction:
18
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
"5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent
Nos.3 to 5 to verify whether the petitioners have been
discharging their duties as claimed by them and whether their
services have been terminated by passing orders if any and if it
is found that the petitioners are rendering their services, the
respondents are directed to pay salaries to the petitioners if
their services have not been terminated. The entire exercise
shall be carried out within a period of three (3) weeks from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order."
25. Further, alleging willful disobedience of the aforesaid orders,
the petitioners filed C.C.Nos.2321 and 2158 of 2022 respectively,
which were allowed in part vide common order dated 03.05.2024,
granting a final chance to comply with the aforesaid orders of this
Court within of fifteen (15) days. Despite the same, the respondents
appear to have not complied with the said orders.
26. While the things stood thus, the impugned order in proceedings
No.MCN/C1/393/2021 dated 15.07.2022, whereby, the services of
the petitioners herein came to be terminated, was furnished to them
on 05.11.2022, which stands as the foundation of the entire
controversy. The following is the relevant portion of the said order:
"Vide reference 1st cited, the Government of Telangana
has issued orders with regard to delegation of powers to the
District Collectors for appointment certain posts in ULBs and
vide reference 2nd cited the Commissioner& Director of
Municipal Administration TS Hyderabad has issued
19
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
instructions regarding appointment of Last Grade Services
including ULBSs is confined to compassionate appointments
only.
Accordingly the process was initiated and vide
reference 3rd cited the process was suspended in compliance
with reference 1st read with reference 2nd.
Therefore, in view of all the reference cited above it is
hereby declared that any order passed/Circulated/offer
letters if issued or communicated or dispatched in this
matter hereby stands terminated."
27. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the sole
basis for termination of the petitioners' services is that though
G.O.Rt.No.525 dated 20.07.2021 delegated powers to the District
Collectors for appointment to certain posts in Urban Local Bodies, the
Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, vide Circular
Roc.No.199024/2021/M3 dated 10.08.2021, had clarified that such
appointments were confined only to compassionate appointments,
and therefore, the recruitment process initiated for regular
appointments was liable to be cancelled. However, a plain reading of
G.O.Rt.No.525 does not indicate, either expressly or impliedly, that
the powers delegated upon the District Collectors were confined only
to compassionate appointments. In fact, the G.O. uses the phrase,
'whenever the vacancies arise in the last grade services...', and
prescribes the procedure to be followed for filling up such vacancies.
20
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
Hence, there is no distinction between the vacancies sought to be
filled through regular recruitment and those to be filled on
compassionate grounds. In the absence of any such restriction in the
G.O., the respondents cannot claim that the said G.O. was confined to
the compassionate recruitments only, by placing reliance upon
circular instructions. It is well-settled principle of law that the
executive instructions or circulars cannot override a Government
Order. Therefore, the basis on which the impugned order came to be
issued is legally unsustainable.
28. Further, it is to be noted that respondent No.2 has filed a
counter affidavit, stating that no prior concurrence from the Finance
Department, as mandated under G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995,
was obtained for the present recruitment, and thus, seek to justify the
impugned action of termination. However, it is pertinent to note that
under G.O.Rt.No.525 dated 20.07.2021, the District Collector was
delegated with the full powers and was entrusted with the
responsibility of undertaking the recruitment process, and thus, he
cannot shirk off his responsibility of obtaining financial concurrence
as mandated under G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995. When the
District Collector exclusively vested with the entire power of
undertaking and carrying out the recruitment process, he is not only
21
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
bound to act with utmost diligence, but also to ensure absolute
compliance with all the procedural formalities. As such, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the technical and procedural lapses
on the part of the competent recruiting authority cannot be attributed
to the selected and appointed candidates, and they cannot be put to
suffer.
29. The respondents, in their counter affidavits and during the
course of arguments, placed reliance upon various irregularities in
the recruitment process, allegedly discovered during subsequent
enquiries. According to the respondents, no financial concurrence
was obtained prior to recruitment; call letters were issued to (978)
candidates while the list furnished by the District Employment
Exchange included only (880) candidates; names of some of the
selected candidates did not figure in the sponsored list furnished by
the District Employment Exchange; certain candidates registered
their names with the District Employment Exchange after submission
of the sponsored list; some of the selected candidates were relatives of
elected representatives and Government employees; and no proper
notification was published. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to
the factual report dated 04.09.2023, submitted by the respondents in
22
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
C.C.Nos.2158 & 2321 of 2022, which categorically held that the
appointing authority itself has erred in the whole selection process.
30. The enquiry reports relied upon by the respondents have also
referred to alleged violations of G.O.Ms.No.193 dated 27.06.1994,
G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995, and G.O.Ms.No.214 dated
08.05.2001 and other Government instructions. However, it is
apposite to note that none of these allegations find place in the
impugned order dated 15.07.2022. The impugned order has been
passed only on the ground that the recruitment was confined only to
compassionate grounds but not regular ones, as per the circular
instructions of the Municipal Commissioner, which reason, has been
thoroughly addressed supra and held to be unsustainable. The
respondents are legally barred from improving their case by way of a
counter affidavit. The law is well-settled, as laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner 1, that the validity of an administrative order must be
judged solely by the reasons contained within the order itself, and
cannot be fortified by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or
otherwise. The following is an excerpt of the said decision:
1 (1978) 1 SCC 405
23
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a
statutory functionary makes an order based on certain
grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in
the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad
in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on
account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds
later brought out. We may here draw attention to the
observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of
Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR
1952 SC 16] :
"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a
statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of
explanations subsequently given by the officer making
the order of what he meant, or of what was in his
mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made
by public authorities are meant to have public effect
and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of
those to whom they are addressed and must be
construed objectively with reference to the language
used in the order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow
older."
31. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners claim that they
were neither issued with a prior notice of termination nor were they
afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned
order. In this connection, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. 2,
wherein, it is categorically held that no decision, which would affect
2 (1993) 3 SCC 259
24
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
the rights of an individual, shall be taken without his/her first being
informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting
forward their case. The following is a relevant excerpt of the said
decision:
8. The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every
case, is whether the person concerned should have a
reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the
authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially.
It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely,
the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the
particular circumstances of the case. In other words
application of the principles of natural justice that no man
should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the
authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the
concerned person.
9. It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be
taken which will affect the right of any person without first
being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity
of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil
consequences must be made consistently with the rules of
natural justice. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272, 308-F]
the Constitution Bench held that 'civil consequences' covers
infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil
liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In
its comprehensive connotation every thing that affects a citizen
in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Black's Law
Dictionary, 4th edn., page 1487 defined civil rights are such as
belong to every citizen of the state or country ... they include
... rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil
action.... In State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei [(1967) 2 SCR
625 : AIR 1967 SC 1269 : (1967) 2 LLJ 266] this Court held
that even an administrative order which involves civil
consequences must be made consistently with the rules of
25
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
natural justice. The person concerned must be informed of the
case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be
given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse
decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was
held that superannuation was in violation of principles of
natural justice.
10. In State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [(1952) 1 SCC 1 : 1952
SCR 284 : AIR 1952 SC 75 : 1952 Cri LJ 510] per majority, a
seven-Judge Bench held that the rule of procedure laid down
by law comes as much within the purview of Article 14 of the
Constitution as any rule of substantive law. In Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : (1978) 2 SCR 621]
another Bench of seven Judges held that the substantive and
procedural laws and action taken under them will have to pass
the test under Article 14. The test of reason and justice cannot
be abstract. They cannot be divorced from the needs of the
nation. The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would
cease to be reasonable. The procedure prescribed must be
just, fair and reasonable even though there is no specific
provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing
cause against action proposed to be taken against an
individual, which affects the right of that individual. The duty
to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from
the nature of the function to be performed by the authority
which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. Even
executive authorities which take administrative action
involving any deprivation of or restriction on inherent
fundamental rights of citizens, must take care to see that
justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done.
They have a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even
the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or
unfairness. They have to act in a manner which is patently
impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice.
...
14. It is thus well-settled law that right to life enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood.
The order of termination of the service of an
26
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
employee/workman visits with civil consequences of
jeopardising not only his/her livelihood but also career and
livelihood of dependents. Therefore, before taking any action
putting an end to the tenure of an employee/workman fair
play requires that a reasonable opportunity to put forth his
case is given and domestic inquiry conducted complying with
the principles of natural justice. In D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor
Congress [1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213] the
Constitution Bench, per majority, held that termination of the
service of a workman giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu
thereof without inquiry offended Article 14. The order
terminating the service of the employees was set aside.
32. In the instant case, as can be seen from the record, no prior
enquiry was conducted before resorting to the petitioners’ termination
and no notices, providing them an opportunity of hearing, were
issued. When the respondents claim several serious irregularities and
illegalities in the petitioners’ appointments, they ought to have
followed the due procedure laid down under law, by conducting a
prior enquiry and affording them an opportunity of hearing. Hence,
the impugned termination order is vitiated by a clear violation of
principles of natural justice.
33. Furthermore, on the one hand, the official respondents raise
several serious irregularities and illegalities in the present
recruitment, while on the other hand, they themselves entire averred
in their counter affidavit that the entire recruitment file is missing in
27
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
the office and a police compliant in this regard was lodged vide FIR
No.240/2024. Therefore, it can be inferred that the respondents’
allegations are unsupported by any material evidence. Moreover, no
information is forthcoming from the respondents, in their counter
affidavit, as to the steps taken against the officials for the said lapses.
In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners
cannot be penalized for the lapses and shortcomings on the part of
the officials and the authorities concerned.
34. In the light of the above made discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned termination order dated
15.07.2022 is wholly unsustainable, and it is liable to be set aside.
35. Accordingly, W.P.No.41060 of 2022 is allowed, setting aside the
impugned termination order in Proc.No.MCN/C1/393/2021 dated
15.07.2022 issued by respondent No.2-District Collector, Nirmal
District.
36. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that the writ
petition, viz., W.P.No.27599 of 2022, challenging the very
appointments of the present writ petitioners, has been filed by some
of the unsuccessful candidates, primarily alleging that the
appointments were made unilaterally by the then District Collector,
28
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
Nirmal, without conducting any written examination or interview; that
several selected candidates were not sponsored by the Employment
Exchange; that some of them were close relatives of elected
representatives and Government officials; and that the appointments
were secured through undue influence. Although these allegations
are substantially identical to those sought to be relied upon by the
official respondents to support the impugned order of termination, the
veracity of these allegations is not adjudicated by this Court, and
therefore, no declaration can be granted in this writ petition, holding
such appointments to be illegal on the basis of these disputed
allegations. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the ultimate relief
sought in this writ petition is issue necessary direction to the District
Collector to engage the services of other eligible persons by canceling
the appointments in dispute. This relief, in the opinion of this Court,
constitutes a Public Interest Litigation rather than a typical writ
petition.
37. In view of the above, W.P.No.27599 of 2022 is liable to be
dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
38. As regards the lis in W.P.Nos.31837 and 36171 of 2022, i.e.,
non-payment of the petitioners’ salaries, the respondents allege that
29
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
the petitioners never discharged any duties and that no attendance
records were found. In this connection, it is apposite to refer to the
following relevant portion of the common order dated 03.05.2024
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in C.C.Nos.2158 & 2321
of 2022.
“21. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the attendance sheets filed along with the Writ Petitions and
also submitted subsequently the duty charts issued by the
Municipal Commissioner and the salary bills admitted by the
Municipal Commissioner to the Treasury office. On going
through the attendance registers submitted by the respondents
to the Registrar (Judicial) upon the directions of this Court, it is
noticed that except for the officers working in the revenue
administrative wing, etc., none of the other attendance registers
are signed by the concerned employees and except for one or
two registers, none of the attendance registers are counter
signed by any of the officers. The attendance registers
submitted by the petitioners are similar to the attendance
registers now deposited before this Court. The facts that the
Municipal Commissioner has forwarded the salary bills to the
District Treasury Officer for payment of salaries to all the 44
petitioners and also that they have been given employee ID
numbers, go to prove that the petitioners have rendered their
services for a particular period and therefore, the contentions of
the 1st respondent Collector and also the subsequent Collectors
that the petitioners have not rendered service even for a single
day, are clearly incorrect and contrary to the record. Further,
the Commissioner, in his counter, has not denied his signatures
on the duty charts nor has he denied his signatures on the
proposals sent to the 3rd respondent District Treasury Officer for
payment of salaries. Therefore, by not denying the allegations
made by the petitioners in the writ affidavits and also not
denying the signatures in the documents filed by the
petitioners, the presumption to be drawn is that the documents
30
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batchare correct and are as per record. The Commissioner seems to
be oscillating between the stands taken by the Collector and the
record. This Court can but go ahead on the basis of the material
on record. The Secretary, in his report has clearly brought out
that the petitioners have been appointed and have joined their
duties and have been rendering their services and that their
services were terminated vide orders dt.15.07.2022 and further,
in W.P.No.41060 of 2022, the said termination orders have been
suspended. Therefore, the petitioners will have to be deemed to
be continuing in service of the respondents. It would be
incorrect if this Court does not take cognizance of the fact that
the appointments were made without taking note of the Circular
dt.10.08.2021 and that the approval of the Finance and
Planning Department had to be taken before filling up of the
vacancies. However, that is the material to be considered while
disposing of the Writ Petitions. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to make any comments on the correctness or otherwise
of such contentions raised by the respondents herein at this
point of time.
22. As far as the Contempt Cases are concerned, in view of
the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
respondents 1 and 2 in the Contempt Cases have both
committed contempt of Court. The role of respondent No.1 being
the District Collector and Magistrate, Nirmal and also being the
appointing authority and having initiated the selection process
and having conducted the interviews and sent the appointment
orders, cannot take a contrary stand that after appointment and
joining duty, the petitioners have not rendered service even for a
day. Initially, there was no contention that some of the
petitioners were working on outsourcing basis. It appears that
in order to cover up the material available on record that the
petitioners have worked and duty charts have been given by the
Municipal Commissioner, the 1st respondent seems to have
taken the stand that some of the petitioners have been
appointed as outsourcing employees and that their attendance
as outsourcing employees is being maintained. It is pertinent to
note that the name of the outsourcing agency through which
the alleged 13 members have been working, has not been
mentioned either by the District Collector or by the Municipal
31
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batchCommissioner. The Collector, being in the respectable position
of a Magistrate and being the appointing authority, cannot and
should not resort to stating falsehood on oath before the Court.
He has not only disobeyed the orders of this Court by not
paying salaries to the employees, but has also committed
perjury before this Court by stating incorrect facts on oath. If
for the reason that the concurrence of the Finance Department
was not obtained before making the appointments and for this
reason, the salaries have not been paid, the respondents could
have approached this Court for modification of the order or
could have approached the Government for approval of the
appointments, but instead, they have resorted to filing incorrect
statements before the Court.
39. In the aforesaid order, this Court has explicitly held that the
petitioners will have to be deemed to be continuing in service of the
respondents, and the contention of the District Collector that the
petitioners have not rendered their services even for a single day, was
held to be incorrect and contrary to the record. Furthermore, the
termination order, which could possibly justify the inaction of the
respondents in paying the petitioners’ salaries, has also been set
aside supra. Therefore, this Court finds no other justifiable ground
for the respondents to deny payment of salaries to the petitioners.
40. Accordingly, W.P.No.31837 of 2022 is disposed of and the
review I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.36171 of 2022 is dismissed,
confirming the order passed by this Court dated 13.09.2022, and the
respondents are directed to pay the salaries to the petitioners from
32
PK, J
W.P.No.41060 of 2022 & batch
the date of their joining into duty, i.e., February, 2022, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
41. Consequently, W.P.No.959 of 2024 is also disposed of directing
the Municipal Commissioner, Nirmal Municipality, to re-submit the
returned bills pertaining to the petitioners, before the District
Treasury Officer, Nirmal District, and ensure that the petitioners
receive their salaries. This exercise shall be complete as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
42. In light of the foregoing discussion and the orders passed
supra, the contempt cases, viz., C.C.Nos.1220 of 2024 and 392 and
461 of 2025, are hereby closed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ
petitions and contempt cases, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Date: 10.07.2026.
GSP
