Recruitment Rules Cannot Be Applied Retroactively to Terminate Employee: Chhattisgarh High Court

Raipur: A single bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice Rajani Dubey, ruled that recruitment rules or guidelines cannot be applied retroactively to improperly terminate an employee. The court set aside the termination order of an Aanganbadi Karyakarta and directed a fresh inquiry under the guidelines applicable at the time of her appointment in 2007.

Background

The petitioner was appointed as an Aanganbadi Karyakarta on April 1, 2007, at the Yampur Aanganbadi Centre under the Department of Women and Child Development. She worked in this role for seven years before being terminated on July 16, 2015. Her termination was based on Clause 1.5 of the Recruitment Guidelines, which mandates that candidates must be residents of the same village as the Aanganbadi center for which they are selected. The petitioner was found to be a native of Murdanda village, not Yampur, and was accused of violating the rules.

In 2014-2015, the petitioner applied for the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta in Murdanda after her earlier termination. She submitted a no-objection certificate dated August 20, 2014, along with an experience certificate. She was awarded six marks for her prior experience and ranked second in the seniority list for the position.

However, the District Women and Child Development Officer issued a show-cause notice, alleging her initial appointment at Yampur was fraudulent. Subsequently, the authorities denied her experience marks and disqualified her from the new recruitment process. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court, challenging her termination and disqualification.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that:

• She was eligible to receive six marks for her previous experience as an Aanganbadi Karyakarta.
• She had not concealed her native residence and had provided a valid certificate confirming her residence in Murdanda.
• Her termination in 2015 was unjustified as it was based on rules issued in 2008, a year after her appointment in 2007.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents contended that:

• Clause 1.4 of the Recruitment Guidelines disqualifies candidates who were previously terminated for irregularities.
• The petitioner’s appointment at Yampur in 2007 violated Clause 1.5, as she was not a resident of the village where the Aanganbadi was located.
• An inquiry conducted by the District Programme Officer confirmed the petitioner’s native village as Murdanda, rendering her earlier selection at Yampur invalid.

Court’s Findings

The High Court examined the petitioner’s termination and the application of the 2008 guidelines:

1. No Fraud in Initial Appointment: The court noted that the petitioner’s native place, Murdanda, was clearly mentioned in her no-objection certificate dated August 20, 2014. There was no evidence of fraud or suppression of information regarding her residence.
2. Non-Retroactive Application of Rules: The court highlighted that the petitioner was appointed in 2007, whereas the recruitment guidelines were issued on April 2, 2008. Applying these guidelines retroactively to terminate her employment in 2015 was deemed invalid.
3. Inconsistent Enforcement: The court observed that other similarly placed Aanganbadi Karyakartas, appointed under similar circumstances, continued to serve without termination.

Judgment

The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that:

• The termination order dated July 16, 2015, was invalid.
• The respondents must re-evaluate the petitioner’s case based on the guidelines in effect at the time of her 2007 appointment.
• If her appointment is found to have been legal under the earlier rules, the petitioner should be reinstated to her previous position.

The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to conduct a proper inquiry and take appropriate action accordingly.

• Download Order Copy