r7v HIGH C»VRTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2»4of2006 PETITIQNER : Smt. Tarannutn Jahan, W/o Shafiq Ahmed, aged about 28 years, R/o Tikarkalan, Pendra Road, Gaurella, Distriet Bilaspiir (Chhattisgarh) ;;.) VERSUS .'i&i RE8PONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarii, Through the Secretary, Urban Admmistration & Departinent Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Siiigh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Nagar Panchayat, Gaurela Through its Chief Mimicipal OfHcer, Nagar Panchayat Gaurella, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 4. Chief Mimicipal OfiRcer, Nagar Panchayat Gaiirella (Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (CG). (WWT PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Present : Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate witii Shri Amit Venna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General with Shri U.N.8. Deo. Govt. Advocate forthe State/respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Prakash Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 & 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 05"' ofMai-ch, 2008) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the validity oftfae order dated 12.01.2006 (Aimexiire P/l), whereby, appointment ofthe petitioner on the post ofUrdu Shiksha Karmi Grade III in Nagar Panchayat, Gorella was caneelled on account ofthe facts that on scrutiny it was found that the process for selectioii was not done in accordance with niles. Further, order dated 03.01.2006 (Amieaire R 1/7), issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur, was also sought to be quashed. 2. The indisputable facts, ia brief, are that purauant to the advertisement dated 11.05.05 (Aimexure P/3), the petitioner made an application for appoiutment on tlie post ofUrdu Shiksha Karmi Grade III. The petitioner was selected and was posted at Govemment Boys Midclle School, Teekaricala, Gorella vide order dated 17.06.05 (Annexiire .P/5). Tlie petitioner, accordingly, joined as Urdu Shiksha t[anm Grade III in Govenmient Boys Middle School, Teekarkala, Gorella on 23.06.05 (Aimexiire P/6). 3. Tlie Collector, Bilaspur, on the basis ofcomplamt niade by one Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni and on the basis ofenquiry report gubmitted by the Tahsildar, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, came to the conclusion that the recnutment process for the post of appoiiitment on tfae post of Urdu Shiksha Karmii©raden and Grade IIt was not followed in accordance with law and despite, their bemg stay of the recniitmeat process, tlie mterview was coaducted. Aecordmgly, the Collector, Bilaspur, by order dated 03.01.06 (Aimexiu-e R 1/7) in B-evenue Case No. 23/2005-06 cancelled the selection process and directed the CSiief Municipal OflRcer, GoreHa, to conduct fresh selection process for appoinfa-nent on the post of Urdu Shiksha Kamii Grade I!!, in accordance with !aw. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.01.( (Annexiire P/l) was passed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition, seeking a direction to quash tiie impiigned order dated 12.01.06 (Aimexiire P/l) and order dated 03.01.06 issued by Ihe regpondent No. 2 i.e. Collector, Bilaspiw. 5. Shri Maiiitidra Stirivastava, leamed senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that once tlie petitioner has been appointed OH the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade III throu^i proper se'ection procegs, selection procesg may not be quashed without affording an opportiimty of hearing to the petiticuier; Tlie impugned order date<i 12.01.06 was issued on the basis ofreport gubmitted by the Tahsildar conducted at the back ofthe petitioner. The respondent authorities have not applied their mind before passing the impugaed order. 6. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, per contra, would subinit tliat on the basis of coinplaint filed by one Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni, the additional Collector, Pendra Road, directed the respcmdent No. 4 on 08.06.05 (AmieMire R 1/2) to coaduct the recmitment process, in accordance with law, as there was a complaint made by one Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni and Shri Murari Lal Agrawal on 24.06.05. Three members committee was appointed to go ..o^-ae."-^ !«33^»^ ^ •t£^®^^1 -tK'^ss^ iuto tiie recniitment process ofUrdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II and Grade III as there were several complaints. On 18.07.05 (Annexiire R 1/4), Special Seeretary, Urban Adnunistration Development Departmeiit, Govt. ofChtiattisgarh, wrote a letter to all the Commissioners and ChiefMunicipal Offieers, to staythe process of recruitment on the post ofUrdu Sliiksha Karmi immediately. 7. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Leanied Deputy Advocate General, would farther siibmitthat admittedly no opportiinity of hearing to the petitioner was given as this is the basie requirenient when puiiitive order is passed against the employee. However, the entire process of selection was vitiated, therefore, the select list and appoiutment thereofwas cancelled without any notice. 8. It was found that contrary to the order dated 18.07.05 ofthe respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 3 and 4 proceeded with the process ofrecniitment and appointed the petitioner on tfae post ofUrdu Sliiksha Karmi Grade III. In the selection coiimiittee, in plaee ofthe Block Education OfBcer, the Assistaiit Project OfBcer was kept. A report of the Tateildar (Amiesaire R 1/5) was submitted to the Sub-Divisional OfRcer, in tum, he sent report to the Collector, Bilaspur (CG) on 05.12.05 (Annexure R 1/6) observmg that the respondent No. 3 and 4 have not followed the process of recniitmeiit in accordance withlaw and despite stay ofthe recmitment process, proceeded with the iiiterview and appointed the petitioner on the post of Urdu Shiksha Kanni Grade III. 9. The respondent No. 3 and 4 have chosen iiot to file any retum and make any submiggion duringthe course ofheariag. 10.Be that as it may, in the present ca.se, admittedly the petitioner was given appointaiient. She woiked for more thaii six months, thus, she is entitled to opportiinity of hearing which is tlie touchstone of the basic principle of natiiral justice and fair play iii action. ^. \. ll.The Hon1»le Supreme Court in case of Shrawan Kuniar Jlia & ofliers Vs. State of Bihar & others , wherein the appointment ofteachers were cancelled without giving them an opportunity ofhearing, observed as undet; "It is not necessary to go into all these questions. In the facts and circumstances ofthis case we are ofthe view that tlie appellant should have been given aii opportiuiity of hearing before canceling their appomtments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well settled that iio orderto the detriment ofthe appellant could be passed without complyiiig with the niles ofnatiiral justice." 12.The HonUe Supreme Court in case ofD.K. Yadav Vg. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. & otfaers , considering the concept ofopportunity ofhearing observed as under: "The eardinal point that has to be bom in mind, in every case, is whether the persoii concemed should have a reasonable opportunity ofpresenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. In otlier words application ofthe prmciples ofthe natural justice that no man should be condemned miheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the ri^its of the concemed person. It is a fandamental nile oflaw that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first beiiig informed of the case and giving hiiWher an opportiinity of putting forward his/her case. Aii order mvolving civil consequences must be made consistently with the niles of natiiral justice. Therefore, fair play in action request that the procedure adopted niust bejust, fair and reasonable. The manner ofexercise ofthe power and its inipact on the rights ofthe person affected would be inconformity with the principles of naturaljustice. 13.The said pruiciple is reafHmied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University & others , vvherein it is held that: "The law is settled tfaat non arbitrariness is essential facet of Article 14 forwarding the entire realm of State action govemed by Article 14. It has come to be established, as a furflier corollary, that the audi alteram partem facet ofnaturaljustice is also a requirement ofArticle 14, for, natiiraljustice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. In the sphere of public employiiient, it is wel! settled that any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fair, just and reasonable which are components of fair treatmeiit. The confermeiit of absolute power to termniate tlie services of an employee is antithesis to fair,just and reasonabletreatmeiit." 14.Further, in the matter of Canara Bank & oth^ Vs. Dehasis Das & others and Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy , the Hon'ble Suprems Court observed as under: "The first and foreniost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteraiii partem nile. It says that no one should be condenuied unheard. Notice is the first limb ofthis pruiciple. It must be precise and unanibiguous. It should apprise the party determiiiatively ofthe case he has to meet Time given for tlie puqiose should be adeqiiate so asto enable him to iiiake his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice ofthe case before any adverse order is passed against him. It is after al! an approved role of fair play and one ofthe most importairf prineiples ofnatiira! justice." IS.Applying well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe preseiit case, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has been condenmed unheard by issuiflg the impugned orders. The actions of the respondent authorities are contrary to well established pritaciples ofnaturaljustice and fair play in action. 16.In view ofthe foregoing, the impugaed order dated 12.01.06 (Aiinexure P/l) and 03.01.06 (Annexiire E-. 1/7) are quashed. Tlie petition is allowed. However, the Stafe authorities may take appropriate actiou, if so advised, after following due process oflaw, affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. No order asto costs. Sd/- S.K. Agnihotri Jucige 1. AIR 1991 SC 310. 2. 1993 f3) SCC 259. 3. AIR 1998 SC 3261. 4. 2003 (4)SCC 557. 5. 2005 (6) SCC 321. Sahu