wrftm ^gg^Sa^Qgssa,. ••*: :",.'**' •."^-{a'H') -.a-efs'ea qBTaq.st.a:,, . SS3l.'%''::.^~:.^;.-::: 18ABW': XOO^>Q:: .iEaepaoSsg ,33q6T::H; • •^AGS' ^^l.,]^,^'^,;,- ..•:' ;^'^'^^^^^^^^ •: '• ' :. : ' 1, '•[eefo^a-fxs '£ ! sn.S-fs'^Se^ . . ISB&^fe^''.;'"- .•;..;'"':1: /: ,/:.' <'A».T"!'®I®BS"q-a^:i"39TaA&Q:' S3.ar¥ : " S%S:;a^sBC>~:rfi?Tn:pS'.I?S -.5::, 34.3%), -[ea-tSctQqf'' -aea.ssg • •' ' 'asao'FSSfuiHiog •z KPSSBKgiyS KSSS'^' BBBSS^? SBSSK Ns^^t^.-/^:;^ SSiK^iSK: ^^s^:y;^~"" ESSS'^n^ iSBSI®"^ ss'ws.g^w's ^^^^^^^^^^' ^SS!>ESSSS.. :.,': »011:S'];AT;a . .IS^SBg !- .'?.BsuQ3Bi33g aaa^tsjfei •tBqTa^. •; 3aB<a-i:ss-tBaBeo.-i:EgoT:S7A-j:a ' '^iaQavB, . : qsa'pea a BAq:^eM.^ ^o^s^B^g .••T; ,'::..aK:,-'-.l;-.,,. -, ^•-....":'''^^'*''':':'.::..Y •';':1:: (d'm.w .'•pa'BH 38-6e^i •^^aeqs' SW^uap-fSaa-y sa'eoS' e^: •PS'SB:: .. •t®Tq..H8ssa:'T:;ii.^' 3e' 3§g.,qgii'Ba'. lrK''I.®TtaHI@,¥K®^SSlH S^€T. ISSSM.ESa' 7Si^>/'° "W"3: ,%aawa%c?t^!.©ggg^ gggg|S|%|aa^^^ffl£§^THa^^^®^g:.^g;^ sssatt.E.sy'-1?1:..-.,:'.' .•."':;^'-'':- •-... ::'".;'^ ^SiSSSSSsSSSiiXSSSsX&fS SaSSSS -?^-^:^5%^;a;;.^^v^ ^•^:^'i^^:.:yf^:^-^S^Sg-«y»sc" ',:^-- :»KK: \ (i^- ;-78 '5i-,'^ \avq <-qi«|«<),l»Tll'«<l<«,RrtWyt *fl*1«l^TT^ ..^.r....i....v.^...T-.^y..^..... ^^20 311^91VISS (ijclij^^) ;iii^?Tg>tR'ii* aanan^CTiCTrail B^tiT»R^lftcT3II^?T 8B: Hon'ble Shirl Manindala Mohan Shrivastava, J. 25.01.2010 Shri S.L. Chaadra, Patel, coiinsel for the petit Shri Arvind Dubey, The instant petitioi Atm.exure A-4 dated 26.1: tenninated froiu the servkj Case of the petitioB) Annexure R-l dated 8.6.11 to fhe post of Upper Divisj appllcation. The petition^ exnTnination and the lasD results were declared in inark sheet was issucdl Aufhorities. Purfher case of fhe appUcation, it was selected for appointment her mark sheet, the ordej favour of the petitioner b| Aiuiexure A-l. q'Kifn^l iiinV^r'1^'^1 '(RI+^K ?>dlR)*f3II^9T j^dvocate appears on behalfof Shri R.S. loner, panel Lawycr for theState/respondents. has been filed assniting the ordcr of [, 1991 by which, the petitioner has been ;s. ;r is that pursuaat to Advertisement of p89 iaviting applications for appoiatment [on. Teacher, the petitioner submitted her :r had already appeared ia B.A. feial paper was held on 17.4.1989 and fhe the 2nd week ofJune, 1989, however the only ou 14.7.1989 from fhe CoUege scrullinized hietitioner is that after she submitted her by tiie authorities and she was to the post and only after she subnfltted of appoijtitment was issued aot onfy in bt also ntunber of oflier caadidates vide ^ -78 <dCTi "tiioirttt, u>-rfl'9<i<»,fic»i«y<( *11Hc»l?SW wrf5-<icfr ^sTsOTW ....y.P..(.4?.^A^./A<%J. 3II^?I qaq? ('3?tgERE) W^20 g^arsR^riigan^r z petitio4er appom|tments Axnongst various fhe petitioner, one of the toy which petitioner's order of termination datc4 giving aay opportuiuty counsel for ttie appointment was issued) scrutinv ofvarious dated 8th February, l990| scrutmy tmdertaken, it entitled to bc appoiated] passiag B.A. examjnation| concemed Univcrsity on subaaission ofappUcation Froin fhe pleadiags| liad applied for appointm^ eiitertamed and scrutixuzii ihat the petitioner auttiorities. However, fhe of B.A, examination werel has not been seriously From fhe perusal reqiiired qualifications fo^ clearly stated. Respond( Aunexare R-2 dated 21*t Bkain serfices playjed qii*i[n<11i *iii»T^"ls'^lt("ltsi<t fcaiKi*<3Il^?T sujbiaissions made by leamed counsel for ground to assail fhe iiapugned order have been tenninatcd is ttiat the 8<b February, 1990 was issued wifhout (?f hearing to fhe petitioncr. Learaed submits that after fhe order of the Coinpetent Authority imdertook madc vide order ofAnnexure A-l It is said fhat afler inquiry made and ^aa found that fhe petitiorter was not as she subinitted her inark sheet of on 15.7.1989 which was issued by the 14.7.1989. whereas thc last date for p>r the said post was 30.6.1989, |on record, it is ctear that the pclitioner ;nt to the post and her appUcation was iz^d. It is not the case of the respondents any fiaud or inisrepreseated fhe ^issertion of fhe petitioaer ftiat her resiilt tdeclared ih fhe 2nd Week of Jime 1989 by tfie respondents. of fhe ^dvertiseinent wlat were ftie appoiutnient to fhe post has not becn have relied upon another cu-cular of I]>ecember, 1989 and it has been stated in dfebuted eilts ltfHC-78 *ii*i«i^m^ >dw< "qi«irt«,yTTl'H-ild, Rri y-< rfg; ...^.P.^.^TRt.^.fAe?.^... ^20 3ir^?TcBTR'li* sptiTan^sraCTfe ill. Suilia 3IT^?T qa^ (>jcli^«l<d) swiTw^iferaii^sr '}- natulre the retum wifh reference ia view of the poUcy laid d( Looking to fhe saul that the order of ai fhese circumstaiices, in n| to be set aside onlv on natural justice, As fhe| consequences, it was iu) authorities to hear the an ex-parte inqiuiy fhat| appoiuted. In the result, fhe termiaation dated 26.12.1( is contuiuing in. servic^ 17.1.1992, no furfher oixjl benefits are necessaiy. No orders as to cosll b the sajd circular that fhe selection was twn thereia. jre of controversy involved, it cannot be jpoiutinent was void or non-est. Undcr ^y opinion' fhe impugned order descrves |fhe ground of viokition of princq)le of order of temxiuation involved civil ;umbent on the part of respondents |itioner before coming to a conclusion ia the oetitioner was not entitled to be peptionei pejtitii tPKlfcxfl'111*IC)T*ffel^l 'jfSl'i^l-i ^srt^tTaii^sr Itition. is aUowed. The impugned order of &91 is hereby set aside. As the petltioucr ;s by virtue of iuteriia order dated lers wifh regard to other conscquential Sd/- x^'Mr stolvastava