Department Appointed With Open Eyes; Termination Of District Court Staff After 22 Years Of Service Bad In Law: Madhya Pradesh HC
Bench quashes mass removals of Class-III employees; holds long service cures procedural lapses, Mansukhlal judgment applies only to illegal, not irregular, appointments
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the termination of several District Court employees who were removed from service more than two decades after their appointments, holding that termination was bad in law especially when the Department considered their claim and appointed them with “open eyes”.
While noting the precedent in Mansukh Lal Saraf Vs Arun Kumar Tiwari & Others. W.P.No.198/99 which deals with illegal appointments, held that their entry into service, at worst, suffered from procedural irregularities and could not be branded illegal or void from inception.
Accordingly, the bench quashed the order and directed reinstatement of the employees to Class-III posts in District Court establishments.
A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed, “The decision in Mansukh Lal applies only to illegal appointments and not to irregular appointments. There was no misrepresentation of facts by the petitioners, and the Department, with open eyes, considered their claim and appointed them. Therefore, the termination after about 22 years of service is bad in law. Accordingly, the petitions deserve to be allowed”.
“While dismissing the petitioners from service, the relevant recruitment rules were not observed, and instead, rules that were not applicable to the petitioners, were applied. Consequently, the order of scrutiny committee is not in accordance with the principles laid down in the Manshukh case, and the order of dismissal passed on the ground that the appointment was illegal and void ab initio is not sustainable. Any irregularity, if at all, could have been rectified; therefore, the decisions in Manshukh Lal and Rakesh Dubey do not apply to the petitioners’ case”, the bench further observed.
Senior Advocate Manoj Kumar Sharma appeared for the petitioners and Advocate Brajesh Nath Mishra appeared for the respondents.
In the present matter, the fathers of the petitioners had sought voluntary retirement for personal reasons, including their health condition under Rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1976 in the year 1995.
Pursuant to which, the petitioners had been appointed in April, May 1995 as Class-III employees in District Court establishments and had served for 22–25 years, earning promotions during their tenure.
The department, however, in October 2017 passed an order removing the petitioner relying on the earlier Mansukhlal Saraf judgment to cancel appointments allegedly made contrary to rules.
The Court noted that at the time of their appointments (1994–95), there were no statutory recruitment rules governing Class-III posts in District Court establishments. District Judges were then empowered to recruit in the “usual manner,” and State medical examination rules were adopted for such establishments only later.
With this background, the Bench held that the appointments could not be termed illegal merely because a later scrutiny committee found deviations from procedural circulars.
Distinguishing between illegal and irregular appointments, the Court ruled that the Mansukhlal directions, requiring annulment of appointments made in violation of recruitment rules, apply only where appointments are inherently illegal. Where employees were qualified, posts were vacant, and no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged, procedural lapses could not justify termination after decades of service. The Bench also observed that long, uninterrupted service and promotions without objection indicated deemed approval by the High Court administration.
Therefore, relying on the principles enshrined in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Court emphasised that past appointments should not be unsettled after such long periods, especially when employees were not at fault.
It accordingly quashed the removal orders and directed reinstatement of the petitioners without back wages, but with consequential service and promotional benefits.
Cause Title: Mohd. Shamim And Others v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:9093]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Manoj Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate, Lavanya Verma, Advocate.
Respondents: Brajesh Nath Mishra, Advocate.