WP-6467-2008 (KU.RITA SWAMI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 23-04-2015 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR 1. Writ Petition No.6467/2008(S) Ku.Rita Swamit Vs. [ENTITY] 2. Writ Petition No.6468/2008(S) Anilj Kumar Harinkhede Vs. [ENTITY] 3. Writ Petition No.6834/2008(S) Ku.Lalita Patel Vs. [ENTITY] 4. Writ Petition No.8002/2008(S) Chainlal Sakre Vs. [ENTITY] 5. Writ Petition No.8284/2008(S) Amaratlal Bisen Vs. [ENTITY] 6. Writ Petition No.8289/2008(S) Vaishali Bisen Vs. [ENTITY] 7. Writ Petition No.12018/2008(S) Ku.[ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] 8. Writ Petition No.1574/2009(S) Ramniwas Awasare Vs. [ENTITY] 9. Writ Petition No.1758/2009(S) Ku.Rabina Vs. [ENTITY] 10. Writ Petition No.1990/2009(S) Smt.Aruna Gedam Vs. [ENTITY] 11. Writ Petition No.1993/2009(S) Smt.Geeta Bisen Vs. [ENTITY] 12. Writ Petition No.1996/2009(S) Devashri Thakur Vs. [ENTITY] 13. Writ Petition No.1997/2009(S) Smt. Jyoti Rahangdale Vs. [ENTITY] For the petitioners: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate For the respondents: Mr. [ENTITY], Govt. Advocate Present: Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] ORDER
(23.04.2015) In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned orders by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated from the post of Contract Teacher Grade III. For the facility of reference, the facts from [CASE NUMBER] are being referred to.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that on 11.9.2007, an advertisement was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Paraswara, inviting applications for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II and Grade III. The petitioners submitted their applications in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. The applications submitted by the petitioners as well as other candidates were scrutinized between 2.11.2007 to 5.11.2007. Thereafter, a provisional list was prepared on 5.12.2007. Thereafter, objections were invited in respect of the provisional select list, by the respondents. A Committee was constituted for disposal of the objections on 29.1.2008 and after disposal of the objections on 30.1.2008, final select list was prepared.
3. After publication of the final select list, advertisement was issued in the daily newspaper namely Swatantra Mat, [ENTITY], Jabalpur Express and Nav Bharaton 9.4.2008 by which candidates were informed to appear in the first, second and third round of counselling, respectively on 11.4.2008, 15.4.2008 and 17.4.2008. The petitioners appeared in the counselling and were appointed vide order dated 11.4.2008 against the sanctioned post of Contract Teacher. It is the case of the petitioners that their appointment was made strictly in accordance with the provisions of [ACT]. However, all of a sudden by the impugned orders dated 14.5.2008 and 19.5.2008, the appointment of the petitioners to the posts in question were cancelled. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and the orders of appointment of the petitioners have been cancelled unilaterally. It is submitted that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] and decision of this Court in the case of Radha Mohan Goswami and others Vs. [ENTITY] and others, 2004(2), M.P.H.T. 49.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has submitted that certain complaints were received with regard to irregularities in holding of the counseling. In order to enquire into the complaint, the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, conducted an enquiry in which it was found that the dates of the counseling was not properly advertised, as a result of which, several candidates who had secured more marks than the petitioners could not participate in the process of counseling. On the basis of the said report, the order cancelling the orders of appointments of the petitioners have been issued. It is further submitted that in the facts of the case, the principles of natural justice have no application. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Government Advocate has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The sole question which arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the appointment of the petitioners could have been cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The principles of natural justice are regarded as important procedural safeguard against undue exercise of power by an authority. The chances of an administrative authority taking decision in ignorance of other factors are reduced as if the hearing is given to the person concerned who will bring all the issues involved in the situation. In such a case the decision making authority shall take into account all the relevant facts and issues involved in the decision and would come to a right decision. Thus, the principles of natural justice is considered as an effective method to protect the interest of individual as he can participate in administrative process affecting him.
7. It is well settled in law that in all cases of violation of principles of natural justice, the Court exercising jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT] need not necessarily interfere and set at naught the action taken by an authority. The Court has to consider the genesis of the action contemplated, the reasons thereof and the reasonable possibility of prejudice while considering the effect of violation of the principles of natural justice. See : [PRECEDENT].
8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that there is no irregularity in the process of selection. Certain complaints were received only at the stage of counseling on the ground that the dates of counseling were not properly advertised due to which persons placed above the petitioners in the merit list could not submit their application and could not participate in the process of counseling. The aforesaid opinion has been formed by the respondents on the basis of enquiry report which has been submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, which is the foundation of prejudicial action, which has been taken against the petitioners. However, admittedly, neither the copy of the aforesaid enquiry report was supplied to the petitioners nor any notice was issued to them before passing the impugned orders. The appointment of the petitioners has been cancelled unilaterally in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The action of the respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioners unilaterally without affording them any opportunity of hearing, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
9. In view of the preceding analysing, the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents would be at liberty to issue notice to the petitioners indicating the ground on which their orders of appointment are sought to be cancelled. Needless to state that any adverse material which is sought to be used against the petitioners shall also be supplied to them and the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to submit their reply. The respondents, after considering the reply, which may be submitted by the petitioners, would be at liberty to pass fresh order containing reasons, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the competent authority shall examine the cases of the individual petitioners on its own merit. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.
([ENTITY]) Judge a () JUDGE