Nagpur: Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court last week quashed termination of five employees of FDCM Gorewada Zoo Limited, holding the employer violated principles of natural justice by dismissing them without issuing show-cause notices or granting them opportunity to be heard.A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode directed FDCM Gorewada Zoo Limited to reinstate employees to their respective posts with continuity of service and full back wages within 8 weeks. Court also quashed appointments of the employees who had been recruited to replace the terminated staff.The petitioners, including company secretary, project manager, general curator, accounts assistant and storekeeper had challenged communications issued in June 2025 and termination orders dated July 16, 2025, through senior counsel Ashok Kumar Sharma and Swapnil Pathak. Their services were terminated after the management obtained a legal opinion stating their appointments were void because the recruitment process allegedly lacked adequate public advertisement, transparency.Respondents argued being an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of Constitution, the zoo was bound to follow constitutional requirements governing public employment. They contended recruitment via online portals or limited advertisements failed to satisfy the mandate of equal opportunity under Art 14 and 16.The court, however, found that the petitioners possessed the prescribed qualifications, were appointed against sanctioned posts, underwent interviews and selection, served for nearly six years, and were later confirmed by the Board after reviewing their performance.Quoting the SC, the Bench observed: “An irregular appointment is one where procedure is not strictly followed but the appointee is otherwise qualified and the post is sanctioned. An illegal appointment, on the other hand, is void ab initio.”HC noted there were no allegations the petitioners lacked qualifications, secured their appointments through fraud or were involved in any procedural irregularity.Rejecting FDCM’s request to keep judgment in abeyance, Bench observed termination itself suffered from a legal flaw as no show-cause notice had been issued before removing the employees.
