^. HIGH C»IIRTOF OEfflATTISGARH AT BILASPIJR WntPetyionNo, 292 of2006 PETITIQNER : Smt. Shagufta Parween, W/o Mohd. Ayaz, aged about 30 years, R/o Pendra Road, Gaurella, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). ^/: VERSUS ,' 1:" RESPQNDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Urban Administration &. Departmant Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Nagar Panchayat, Gaurela Through its Chief Municipal Qfficer, Nagar Panchayat Gaurella, Distt. Bilaspur (CO). 4. Chief Municipal OfRcer, Nagar Panchayat Gaiu-ella (Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETTHON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTtmON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satfsh K. Affluhotri. J.) Present : Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Amit Venna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachliwaha, Deputy Advocate General with Shri U.N.S. Deo. Govt. Advocate for tfae State/'respondent No. 1 & 2. Sliri Prakash Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 & 4. ORALORDER (Passed on OS"' ofMarch, 2088) 1. The petitioner, by this petitioii, challenges the validity oftlie order dated 12.01.2006 (Annexiire P/l), whereby, appointment ofthe petitioner on the post ofUrdu Shiksha Kamii Grade III in Nagar Panchayat, Gorella was cancelled on account ofthe facts that on scnrtmy it was found that the process for selection was not done in accordaiice with rules. Fiirther, order dated 03.01.2006 (Aime3a)re R 1/7), issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur, was also soughtto be quashed. 2.The indisputable facts, in brief, are that pursuant to tfae advertisement dated 11.05.05 (Annexiire P/3), the petitioiier made an application for appointment on tlie post of Urdii Shiksha Kanni Grade III. The petitioner was selected and was posted at Govemment Boys Middle School, Teekaricala, Gorella vide order dated 17.06.( (Annexiire P/5). The petitioner, accordingly, joined as Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade III in Govemment Boys Middle School, Teekarkala, Gorella on 23.06.05 (Amiexiire^ P/6\ ^' 3. The Collector, Bilaspur, on the basis ofcomplaitiit made by one Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni and on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, came to the conclusion that tfae recniitment process for the post of appointment on the post of Urdu Shiksha Kanni GraSe II and Grade IK was not followed in accordance with law and despite, their being stay of the recmilment process, tlie interview was conducted. Accordingly, the Collector, Bilaspur, by order dated 03.01.06 (Annexure R 1/7) in Revenue Case No. 23/2005-06 cancelled the selection process and directed the Chief Municipal OfiScer, Gorella, to conduct fregh selection process for appointment on the post of Urdu Shiksha Kamii Grade III, in accordance with law. Consequeirily, the impugned order dated 12.01.06 (Annexiire P./l) was passed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petitioii, seeking a dlrection to quash the impugned order dated 12.01.06 (Amiexiire P/l) aiid order dated 03.01.06 issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur. 5. Sliri Manindra Slirivastava, leamed senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that once the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade III through proper selection proeess, selection process may not be quashed'Without affording an opportiimty of hearing to the petitioner. The impugiied wder dated 12.01.06 was issued on the basis ofreport submitted by the Tahsildar conducted at the back of fhe petitioner. The respoiident authorities have not applied their mind before passing the impugned order. 6. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, per contra, would subimt that on the basis of compiamt filed by one Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni, the additional Collector, Pendra Road, directed the respondent No. 4 on 08.06.05 (Annexure R 1/2) to conduct the recniitment procegg, in accordance with !aw, as there was a complaint made by one Sliri Dwarka Prasad Soni and Shri Murari Lal Agrawal on 24.06.05. Three members conumttee was appointed to go .<; 3 "•ito tlie recmitment process ofUrdu Shiksha Kanni Grade II and Grade III as fliere were several complaiiits. On 18.07.05 (Aimexure R 1/4), Special Secretary, Urban Admimstration Development Department, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, wrote a letter to all the Commissioners and ChiefMunicipal QfBcers, to stay tfae process ofrecmitment on the post ofUrdu Shiksha Karmi immediately. 7. Shri A.S. KacMiwaha, Leamed Deputy Advocate General, would fiirther submit that aclmittedly no opportimity ofhearing to the petitioner was given as this is tfie basic requirement when punitive order is passed agaii^t the employee. However, the entu-e process of selection •was vitiated, therefore, the select list and appointment thereofwas cancelled without any notice. 8. It was found tfaat contrary to the order dated 18.07.05 ofthe respondent No. 1, die respondent No. 3 and 4 proceeded -with the process ofrecmitment and appointed the petitioner on the post ofUrdu Shiksha Kanni Grade III. In die selection conunittee, in place ofthe Block Education OflGcer, the Assistant Project OfScer was kept A report of the Tahsildar (Aimexiire R 1/5) was submitted to the Sub-Divisional OfBcer, in tum, he sent report to the Collector, Bilaspur (CG) on 05.12.05 (Annexure R 1/6) observing that the respondent No. 3 and 4 have not followed the process of recaiitinent in accordance \nth law and despite stay of flie recmitment process, proceeded with the interview and appointed the petitioner on the post of Urdu Shiksha Kanni Grade III. 9. The respondent No. 3 and 4 have chose" not to file aiiy retiim and nialce any subniission during the course ofhearing. 10.Be that as it may, in the present case, admittedly the petitioner was given appointment. She worked for more than six montfas, thus, she is entitled to opportiitrity of hearuig which is the touchstone of tfae basic principle of natural justice and fair play in aetion. 1 ll.The Hontde Supreme Coiirt in case of Shrawan Kumar Jlia & others Vs. State of Bihar & others , whereinthe appointment ofteachers were cancelled without giving them an opportunity ofheariiig, observed as under: "It is not necessary to go into all tliese questions. In the facts aiid cireiimstaices ofthis case we are ofthe view that the appellant should have been given an opportiitiity of hearing before canceling their appointnients. Admittedly, no such opportunity was affofded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detrunent ofthe appellairt could be passed without complying with the rules ofmrtiiraljustice." ^ 12.The Honlk Supreme Court in case ofD.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A Iiidustries Ltd. & others , considering the concept ofopportunity ofhearing observed as under: "Tlie cardinal point that has to be bora in mind, in every case, is whether fhe person concemed ghould have a reasonable opportuiuty ofpresenting his case aiid tlie authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. Iii other words application ofthe principles ofthe natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard uitends to prevent the authority from aeting arbhrarily afFecting the ri^rts of tfae concemed person. !t is a fandamental nile oflaw that no decision must be taken which wil! afiTeet the riglit of any person without first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. Aa order involvmg civil consequences must be made consistently with the niles of natural justice. Therelbre, fair play in action request tfaat the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. Tlie manner of exercise ofthe power and its impact on the rights oftfae person afFected would be inconfomuty with the principles of naturaljustice." 13.The said principle is reafBrmed by the HonUe Supreme Court in the matter of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University & others , vvherein it is held that: "The law is settled that noii arbitrariness is essential facet of Article 14 forwarding tfie entire realm of State action govemed by Article 14. It has come to be established, as a fiirther coroliary, that the audi alteram partem facet ofnatiiraljustice is also arequirement ofArticle 14, for, natiiraljustice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. Iii the sphere of public employment, it is well settled that any action taken by the employer against an enyloyee must ~^ ^ I tsssp®--, l t^ 'lito^-,^' ^ "^^s?^' be fair, just and reasonable which are components of fair treatment. The cotifermeit of absohrte power to terminate the services of an employee is antithesis to falr, just and reasonable treatment." 14.Further, in the matter of Canara Bank & offae^ Vs. Debasis Das & other^ and Canara. Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "Tlie first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem nile. It says that no one should be condeiimed uniieard. Notice is the firet liinb ofthis prmciple. It must be precise and unambigiioiis. It should apprise the party determinatively ofthe case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so asto enable him to make 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 thaf a party should be put on aotice ofthe case before any adverse order is passed against hiin. It is after all an approved mle of fair play and one ofthe most important principies ofnaturaljiistice." 15.App!ying well settled principles oflawto the facts ofthe present ease, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has been condeiimed unheard by issuing the impugned orders. The actions of the respondent authorities are coiitrary to well established principles ofnaturaljustice and fairplay in action. 16.In view ofthe foregoing, tfae impugned order dated 12.01.06 (Ajmexiire P/l) and 03.01.06 (Annexure R 1/7) are quashed. The petition is allowed. However, the State authorities may take appropriate action, if so advised, after following due process oflaw, affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. No order asto costs. Sdf- S.K. Agnihotri Judgs 1. AIR 1991 SC 310. 2. 1993 (3) SCC 259. 3. AIR 1998 SC 3261. 4. 2003 (4)SCC 557. 5. 2005 (6) SCC 321. Sahu