SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.G. Balakrishnan and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 627 of 2005. D/d. 20.1.2005.

Ashwanti Kumar - Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana - Respondents

Termination of service - Validity - Service terminated by non-speaking order - Employee denied opportunity of hearing - Matter remanded back to pass reasoned order.

[Paras 3 and 4]

ORDER

K.G. Balakrishnan, J. - The District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra (Haryana) invited applications for appointment to the two posts of process server. The selection was held out of 600 applicants and merit list was prepared. In April 2002 two fresh posts of process server fell vacant and out of the merit list four persons were appointed on 22-4-2002.

2. On 24-4-2002, seven more posts of process server were created in the Sessions Court, Kurukshetra by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Thereafter on 8-5-2002, the District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra issued order of appointment to the present appellants as they were having ranks from 5 to 12 in the merit list. However, the services of these appellants were terminated on 24-9-2002. The appellants challenged this order before the High Court by filing a writ petition. The following order was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court:

"We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record of the case.

No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 24-9-2002.

Dismissed."

3. Grievance of the appellants is that before the services were terminated, the District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra did not hear the appellants and they were not served with a notice to give explanation as to why their services should not be terminated. Their further contention is that the High Court has also not given any reasons for dismissing the writ petition filed by them. Counsel for the appellants contended that even though two posts were advertised, the advertisement showed that the authorities wanted to appoint more persons in anticipation of the vacancies that would arise in future. He has also submitted that nearly more than 600 candidates appeared for selection and the appellants who secured higher rank in the merit list were entitled to be appointed to the existing posts which were created by the High Court.

4. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the appellants. However, we feel that the High Court should have considered the contentions raised by the appellants and a speaking order should have been passed. As we feel that the appellants were not given an opportunity of being heard either by the authorities who removed them from service or by the High Court, we are of the view that the appellants be heard by the High Court and a reasoned order be passed and for that limited purpose, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remand the case back to the High Court to consider the writ petition filed by the appellants on merits after giving them an opportunity of being heard and dispose it of on merits by a speaking order. The respondents would be at liberty to raise all contentions before the High Court.

5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

.