Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

PRAMOD LAHUDAS MESHRAM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided
11 September 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 117 · 1996 INSC 1032
Also cited as
  • (1996) 10 SCC 749 (7 citing judgments)
  • (1996) SCC(L&S) 1487 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned.

p. 117, margin E

The petitioner complains that he being a qualified candidate with Diploma in Engineering and Secondary Education had applied for the post of Oversear/Junior Engineer (Civil Engineering) as per the advertisement dated April 30, 1991 published in daily 'Tarun Bharat' on May 2, 1991. The advertisement indicated that of the 3 posts, two were reserved for backward classes and one was for general candidates. Petitioner being a reserved class, hailing from che Scheduled Caste, received letter of appointments from the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli; in letter No. PWB/Estt-1/1108/1/93 dated March 31, 1993 it was stated that a recommendation had been made by Member Secretary, Regional Subordinate Service Seleccion Board, Nagpur in their letter No. RSB,:Nag/1210/M-792/PS-l/92 dated June 15, 1992 that 3 candidates were selected. The names had been repeated and as regards the petitioner, his recommendation letter No. RSB/N~g/1160/M-792/1992/PS-I dated July 31, 1992/7.8.92 was said to be issued by the Member Secretary selecting the petitioner as Junior Engineer (Civil). Pursuant thereto, he came to be appointed as a Junior Engineer with probation for one year. After completion of nine months service, he received the letter dated November 16, 1992 stating therein that the above letters carried unauthorised recommendations; therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The order of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli was impugned by the petitioner and others in the W.P. No. 885/93 in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench claiming that they had been regularly appointed to the posts which were advertised; therefore, their services could not be terminated during t~e probation period without affording opportunity of hearing in the enquiry. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this special leave petition.

pp. 117–118, margin G

Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that when the posts were advertised and the candidates were found eligible, it does not mandate that there should be an interview and selection. Obviously, the Service Selection Board having found the petitioner to be eligible and qualified, recommended him and was accordingly appointed as Junior Engineer, when it was sought to be cancelled on a letter written by Member Secretary of the Service Selection Board, they are entitled to be heard. No such opportunity has ever been given before cancellation of their appointments. It was, therefore, violative of principles of natural justice. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that on their own admission they have merely applied for the post pursuant to an advertisement made for the selection. It is the case of the Selection Board that a regular selection has to be made and selecting the eligible candidates, recommendation for appointment would be made. Therefore, the letter can be said to have conveyed that the recommendations were not authorised and according to the rules; such being the admitted position, we do not find any fault to cat).cel the appointments. Under those circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents. However, such things will not be permitted to be kept under the carpet. The State Government is directed to refer the matter to the appropriate State CBI enquiry and the concerned Inspector would make an independent investigation into the matter to find out as to who were responsible for such mal- practice committed and it will be open to take appropriate criminal prosecution launched against the culprits.

pp. 118–119, margin E

The SLP is dismissed. This order to be communicated to the D.G.P., Maharasht~a. G.N. Petition dismissed .

p. 119