Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Shailendra Singh Dhaked S/O Shri Shiv … vs The Indian Council Of Agriculture … on 30 July, 2025
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6592/2022
Shailendra Singh Dhaked S/o Shri Shiv Charan Lal, Aged About
40 Years, R/o 369 Kusum Vihar, Ramnagaria Road, Jagatpura
Road, Jaipur now discontinued from service from the post of E-1
(Lab Technician), Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute,
Avikanagar, Tonk.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Indian Council of Agriculture Research, through its
Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New
Delhi.
2. The Director, Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute,
Avikanagar, Tonk.
3. The Chief Administrative Officer, Central Sheep and Wool
Research Institute, Avikanagar, Tonk.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Punit Singhvi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Dr.Saugath Roy, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
ORDER
RESERVED ON :: :: :: 21/07/2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: :: :: 30/07/2025
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-
This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 17.11.2021
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
(for brevity ‘the tribunal’) dismissing Original Application (‘OA’)
No.431/2011 filed by the petitioner.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner in pursuance to
advertisement inviting applications for temporary post at Central
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB] (2 of 11) [CW-6592/2022]
Sheep & Wool Research Institute, (CSWRI), Avika Nagar, Tonk
applied for post T-1 Lab Technician and was appointed vide office
order dated 05.07.2011. The petitioner was removed from service
under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service)
Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Rules’) vide order dated 16.09.2011.
The petitioner was given one month salary in lieu of notice period.
The OA filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the removal order was
dismissed by the tribunal vide order dated 17.04.2012. The order
of the tribunal was set-aside by this Court on 23.10.2017 in
DBCWP No.9303/2012 (Shailendra Singh Dhaked Vs. Indian
Council for Agriculture & Ors.) and the matter was remanded to
the Tribunal. The OA was again dismissed vide impugned order
dated 17.11.2021, hence, the present petition.
3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination
of the petitioner under Rule 5 of the Rules is stigmatic being
consequent to irregularity in the selection process. The contention
is that petitioner was beneficiary of the selection process and
should have been given opportunity to defend the case before
passing the order of removal from service.
3.2 Reliance is placed upon the decision of Central Administrate
Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in Original Application
No.908/2011 titled as P. Phani Kumar Vs. The Director,
National Research Centre on Meat & Ors. dated 07.08.2013 to
contend that similarly situated candidates were allowed to
continue holding that there is stigma attached for removing an
employee for reason of irregularity in selection process. It is
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB] (3 of 11) [CW-6592/2022]
emphasized that decision of the tribunal, Hyderabad Bench was
upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
3.3 Reliance is placed upon the following decisions:-(i)
Dr.Vijayakumaran C.P.V. Vs. Central University of Kerala
and Ors. reported in [(2020)12 SCC 426], (ii) Abhay Jain Vs.
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr. reported in
[2022 SCC Online SC 319], (iii) Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Poornendu Sharma & Anr.
and other connected matters decided by this Court in D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No.403/2018 on 23.08.2018 and (iv)
Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Leela Singh
reported in [(2007)12 SCC 146] to contend that enquiry should
have been held prior to passing the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned
order and submits that selection process was vitiated by gross
irregularities. The candidates securing higher marks in written
examination were neither considered nor called for interview and
no marks were given for interview.
4.1 It is contended that on enquiry the complaints of
irregularities in selection process were found to be veracious and
the entire selection for the post of Lab Technician was cancelled.
4.2 The submission is that in the disciplinary proceedings
initiated for irregularities in selection process penalties were
imposed against the then Director and the Chief Administrative
Officer. The decision of the tribunal, Hyderabad Bench is
distinguished by stating that in the present case no marks for
interview were given.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB] (4 of 11) [CW-6592/2022]
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings.
6. The advertisement and appointment order clearly specified
that appointment to the post of T-1 Lab Technician was on the
temporary basis.
7. The relevant portion of Rule 5 of the Rules is reproduced
below:-
“5. Termination of temporary service:-
(1) (a) The services of a temporary Government
servant shall be liable to termination at any time
by a notice in writing given either by the
Government servant to the appointing authority or
by the appointing authority to the Government
servant;
(b) the period of such notice shall be one month.
Provided that the services of any such Government
servant may be terminated forthwith and on such
termination, the Government servant shall be
entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of
his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice
at the same rates at which he was drawing them
immediately before the termination of his services,
or as the case may be, for the period by which
such notice falls short of one month.”
8. Rule 5 provides termination of temporary service by serving
a notice of one month either by the employee or the appointing
authority. The proviso provides that in case a shortfall of notice
period, the employee is entitled to claim a sum equivalent to his
pay plus allowances.
9. Under Rule 5 the services of the petitioner were discontinued
vide office order dated 16.09.2011 and salary of one month was
paid in lieu of the notice period.
The office order is reproduced below:-
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB] (5 of 11) [CW-6592/2022]
CENTRAL SHEEP & WOOL RESEARCH
INSTITUTE
AVIKANAGAR (VIA: JAIPUR)
RAJASTHAN- 304 501F.No.1(11) Rectt./2011/Admn.1/6101
Dated: 16.09.2011OFFICE ORDER
In pursuance of ICAR letter No.17-1/10-
IA-I dated 15.09.2011 and the terms &
conditions of offer of appointment
Memorandum No.1(3)Rectt./2007/Admn.I/2039
dated 25.03.2011 under clause No.7, it has
been decided by the Director CSWRI to
discontinue the services of Shailendra Singh
Dhakad, T-1 (Lab Technician) with immediate
effect under rule 5 of CCS (TS) rules, 1965.
Further one month salary will be paid to him in
lieu of one month notice as per rules.
Sd/-
K.L. Meena
Chief Administrative Officer
10. From perusal of the office order, it is forthcoming that it is a
case of simple discontinuation of service under Rule 5.
11. There is no challenge to the following factual findings
recorded by the tribunal:-
(i) The petitioner had secured lowest marks in written
examination against the candidates selected and eight persons
were getting higher marks than the petitioner.
(ii) As per the record produced, no marks for interview were
allotted.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB] (6 of 11) [CW-6592/2022]
(iii) The other two candidates appointed on the post of T1-Lab
Technician also had significantly lower marks than the other
candidates who were neither considered nor called for interview.
(iv) Lastly from the record produced and from advertisement no
condition was shown that the written examination shall be only for
screening purposes and the selection shall be made on the marks
secured in interview alone.
12. The committee constituted to look into the complaint against
the irregularities in recruitment on the post of T-1 Lab Technician
and T-3 Lab Technician found gross irregularities in recruitment
and the entire selection was cancelled.
13. The order of discontinuation of service of petitioner under
Rule 5 does not make a mention of irregularity in the selection and
cannot be stated to be stigmatic.
14. Be that as it may, the law is well settled that where the
selection process itself is bad, illegal, suffers from gross
irregularity, the individual innocence has no place.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of M.P. State Coop. Bank
Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Nanuram Yadav & Ors. reported in [(2007)8
SCC 264] held that:-
“20. It is clear that in the matter of
public appointments, the following
principles are to be followed:-
(1) The appointments made without
following the appropriate procedure under
the Rules/Government Circulars and
without advertisement or inviting
applications from the open market would
amount to breach of Articles 14 & 16 of
the Constitution of India.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB] (7 of 11) [CW-6592/2022]
(2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of
appointment.
(3) An appointment made in violation of
the mandatory provisions of the statute
and in particular, ignoring the minimum
educational qualification and other
essential qualification would be wholly
illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by
taking recourse to regularization.
(4) Those who come by back door should
go through that door.
(5) No regularization is permissible in
exercise of the statutory power conferred
under Article 162 of the Constitution of
India if the appointments have been
made in contravention of the statutory
Rules.
(6) The Court should not exercise its
jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy.
(7) If the mischief played so widespread
and all pervasive, affecting the result, so
as to make it difficult to pick out the
persons who have been unlawfully
benefited or wrongfully deprived of their
selection, it will neither be possible nor
necessary to issue individual show-cause
notice to each selectee. The only way out
would be to cancel the whole selection.
8) When the entire selection is stinking,
conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit,
individual innocence has no place and the
entire selection has to be set aside.”
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Yadav Vs. State of
Jharkhand reported in [2025 INSC 176] considering the
judgment of M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. Bhopal Vs. Nanuram
Yadav & Ors. (supra) held that the power of the Courts on
setting aside of appointments being nullity in law are not curtailed
by creation of a third party right. The relevant para is quoted:-
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB] (8 of 11) [CW-6592/2022]
“35. Thus, it is clear that once the
appointment process is declared to be a
nullity in law, every action taken in
furtherance of such appointment process is
also illegal, and, therefore, the
constitutional courts have jurisdiction to
set aside such appointments wholly and
ab-initio. This power of the Court is not
curtailed even in a situation where a third
party right has been created in those who
have been offered appointment or have
even joined the service.”
17. In the decision of Ranbir Singh Vs. S.K. Roy and Ors.
reported in [(2023)17 SCC 196] the Court held that:-
“72. xxxxxxxxxxxx As a public employer,
the recruitment process of the corporation
must meet the constitutional standard of a
fair and open process. Allowing for back-
door entries into service is an anathema to
public service.”
18. In decision of Abdul Ahad & Ors. Vs. Union of India &
Ors reported in [(2022)18 SCC 108] the Court held that the
back door entrants are not entitled to equitable relief.
19. The discontinuance of service of the petitioner was under
Rule 5 of the Rules and order of removal had no stigmatic
contents in it. It was revealed during the litigation that the
selection process marked by gross irregularities and the entire
selection process of T-1 Lab Technician was cancelled. The
revelation of this fact cannot be allowed to be encashed by the
petitioner to continue in service by stressing that the removal in
the case of cancellation of the recruitment shall be presumed to
be stigmatic.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB] (9 of 11) [CW-6592/2022]
20. The contention that the petitioner was beneficiary of the
recruitment process and should have been granted an opportunity
to defend before passing the order dated 16.09.2011, is noted to
be rejected. The petitioner a candidate in selection process had no
locus standi to defend the irregularities in the selection process,
moreso, in absence of laying challenge to cancellation of
recruitment.
21. Another aspect is that neither before the tribunal nor in the
writ petition it is disputed that the petitioner secured lowest marks
amongst the listed candidates and there were eight candidates
securing more marks than the petitioner. Further that no marks
for interview were awarded. In other words, no criteria was
followed for selecting the candidates including the petitioner.
22. Reliance of counsel for the petitioner on decision of tribunal,
Hyderabad Bench in P. Phani Kumar (supra), is of no avail. The
tribunal in that very case recorded a finding that the facts of the
present case are not similar to that case. In case before the
Hyderabad Bench, there was only difference of two marks in the
written test and separate marks were allotted for interview. There
was no material produced to show disproportionate preference
given to the selected candidates on the basis of interview.
Whereas in the present case the marks secured in written test
were not considered and no marks were awarded in interview. The
tribunal rightly distinguished the decision.
23. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that
decision of the tribunal was upheld by the High Court and the
Supreme Court is factually misconceived. The High Court had not
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB] (10 of 11) [CW-6592/2022]
dealt with the case on merits and considering that the
respondents had already reinstated the employees, the order of
the tribunal was not interfered with. The SLP against the order of
the High Court was dismissed on the ground of delay.
24. In all fairness, the decisions relied upon by the counsel for
the petitioner are being dealt with.
25. In case of Dr.Vijayakumaran C.P.V. (supra) termination
order itself mentioned that the decision to terminate the employee
was taken after scrutiny of report by Internal Complaints
Committee, other documents and the academic performance.
However, in the present case the discontinuation of service was
under Rule 5 of the Rules of a probationer who was appointed on a
temporary post. The case relied upon is factually different.
26. The decision of Abhay Jain (supra) is not applicable in the
facts of the present case. The discharge of the petitioner in that
case was not simpliciter. The uncommunicated ACRs were relied
upon for discharging the service. There was no verifiable
complaint against the appellant therein to form the basis for the
disciplinary proceedings.
27. In the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation (supra) the termination was on the ground of
doubtful integrity and was held to be stigmatic.
28. In case of Punjab State Electricity Board (supra) the
Court held that services of the employee were terminated for
obtaining appointment by producing forged experience certificate
and the allegation was required to be proved in the departmental
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27854-DB] (11 of 11) [CW-6592/2022]
proceedings. The case is not applicable in the set of facts in the
present case.
29. The detailed and well reasoned order of the tribunal suffers
from no factual or legal error calling no interference, the petition is
dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J
Himanshu Soni/Chandan/reserved
Reportable:- Yes
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:53:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)