Manoranjan Roy Vs. State of Assam and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- a.p. urban areas (development) act, 1/1975. natural justice: [s.b. sinha & markandey katju, jj] exclusion or inapplicability of principles of natural justice held, the principles of natural justice may not be applicable in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. the application of the said principles is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise. where the selection of the appellant employee was illegal as he was ineligible to be considered for appointment, the cancellation of his appointment without affording any opportunity of hearing to him by the visitor of the university concerned (i.e. president of india), held, was proper. labour & services appointment: [s.b. sinha & markandey katju, jj] invalid/illegal appointment distinguished from irregular appointment held, if an appointment is irregular, it can be regularized. but if it is illegal (made violating articles 14 and 16 of the constitution and statutory rules), it is non est in the eye of the law and is a nullity. equity jurisdiction of the supreme court would not be invoked in a case of illegal appointment. sympathy should not be misplaced recruitment; recruitment process eligibility conditions determination of eligibility (pertaining to educational qualification in the present case) cut-off date for necessity for held, in order to avoid any uncertainty in such matters, fixation of a cut off date is a must. however, in the absence of any cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing the application must be considered as a cut-off date. in the instant case, the appellant did not hold the requisite qualification as on the said cut-off date. hence, he was not eligible for the post in question.order1. this matter is delinked from civil appeal no. 7922/2002.2. we find that the petitioner has filed this slp seeking leave to challenge the order of a learned single judge, even though there is a provision for a writ appeal. we therefore reject this special leave petition relegating the petitioner to the remedy of writ appeal in accordance with law. we are sure if and when he avails of such remedy, the time spent by the petitioner in these proceedings will be excluded.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This matter is delinked from Civil Appeal No. 7922/2002.

2. We find that the petitioner has filed this SLP seeking leave to challenge the order of a learned Single Judge, even though there is a provision for a writ appeal. We therefore reject this special leave petition relegating the petitioner to the remedy of writ appeal in accordance with law. We are sure if and when he avails of such remedy, the time spent by the petitioner in these proceedings will be excluded.