D/ IN THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIEENf JABALPUR o.A. Mméw'? 13 /2ooo Ramesh Kumar Shanna . ‘ 1 s/o shri Battu Prasad Shanna, aged about 33 years. Assistant Teacher, Primary School -‘ Samnapur, district Kawardha. Applicant VERSUS Respondents 1. state of Madhya Pradesh Through secretary Department of school Education Government of Madhya Pradesh Vall abh ‘Bhawan . BHOPAL ’. 2. Director, Public Instructions. Government of Madhya Pradesh ‘ ‘ Val 1 abh Bhawan , BHOPAL . \ 3. District Education Officer, 1 W Kawardha. district Kawardha. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF ‘THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT. 1985 m UIJ HIGH $OURT OF CHHATT§SGARH : EILASPUR Q yin £62 .Qaanch: Hon’ble $hri Manindra Mohan Shrivaswva J. WRIT .9ET3TION {5}! ?\50.2Q45I2005 A?§3Lic:§s§\%? Ramesh Kumar $ha‘rma Versus §E3PQNDEMT$ State of Madhya Pradesh and others Preggnth ‘ Shri Deepak Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 & 3‘ ‘ QRAL QRDER . {Passed an this 22na day of March, 2mm mmhy. Whh the consent of learned munsei for the parties, ihe petition i3 heard (2) The petifioner has as3aited the legaliiy arid vaiidity 0f arder dated 2§-.95»2009 (Annexure Aw25), by which, petitioner'e appointment vide crcier éateui 13401-421393 has been eeciared- iiiegai and his sen/ices teinated. {3) Faefe i biief, neceeeafy far decision of this case are ihat the petitioner was ini’ziaiiy aepointed as a Aesistant Teaeher an 28'04‘1993. This order 0f apeoiniment w e hewever canceilee‘ vide order dated 18-05—1994. The said ede f cansetiatiah was challenged by fiting O.A.No.1169 of 1894 before the MP. Stat” Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpur. in the eaid originai appiication, an triterim m‘der wee granted an 94014994. Byyirttiiegft‘that interim arder, the netitioner eentinued in service. The Tribunai‘ though dismiseed the petition, but et the eeme time. it wee obsewed that the petitioner may be aecommcdeted in eeme ether zeeet, if it is tying vasent. . f7. !W ‘ rm \ \ {4) The saSc! ordei‘ of the Tribuna¥ was challenged by the petitioner by filing a rewew wtit‘lon, which was; a§59 dismissed by the Tribunal Vide order dated O7~O7~1999. There iS no materia! 0n record t0 show tha€ the respohdents have athallenged the order 0f ihe Tribuha! to the extent it centained abservatian to aeeommecie‘ie {he petiiiener te Seine o$hef posts in case 0f a vacancy. The said enie ihei'efere attained finaiity. {5} ih view af the ebeewation made by the Tribunal, respandents proceeded t0 paes an eyder dated 13014999. by which, the petitiehef was accammociateci eh e veeem pee? of Aseie‘iant Teacher in Primary Echoei, Samnapur, Black Eawafiiha. The Said ardei’ was however canceiied by declaring ihe same te be Eiiegei wide eréler cia‘ied 29-98%900‘ which is impugned beiere this Cami. (l) {5} Learn d eeumel fer the peiiiierier eubmite ihat even though the Tribunal r deed 0é~i2«1998 passed in Qriginal Applicatien No.1169 of 19% delied earlier eancelletien vide erder dated 18—05—1994. ceneidering the fact the: "ihe peiitiener wee eentinued in serviee by virtue of interim order dated MmOYNiQQe, ieeued a direciion that the petitioner may be eccommedated in eeme ether eest, f it is lying meant. Learned eounsei for the petitioner submits the; this gait ef the Tribunal‘s directian was never cailed in question by the :eependente, and therefore, it ettained finaiity. Leerned counsel fudher submite that e3 a peat wee tying vacant, diseretion waeexercised and erder of ameintment was issued 0n 134314999 againstx‘xfeeent past of Assistant Teeeher in View of the order paeeed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel next eiiemite that the respondents were not justified in cancelling hie apieeintment vide impugned erder dated 29~06—2000‘ ae it being a case of appointment under \ \ 0 $3. m iii: its: ‘3‘ :\ \ k W 4* 7§ a j‘udécia! (mien wouid have precedence ever the government‘s order dated 20~Q1w1 993 (Annexure R4). CF) On ihe ather hand, learned state coume} vehementiy oppo$es the aaim a§ Ehe petitiwar by gubmitting that the Tribune! cleariy recorded a finding ihat canceiiaiim 3f petiiioner‘e appaintment wae juetified ami in accordance with iaw. The abeervation made by the Tribunal was not in the nature ef any direction and eni’y' matte. at diecretion. in eempiiance of the erder passed by the Tribunal dated 01424998, the petitiener wee appointed as Aesistant Teacher vide arder dated mam-48%. Later 0n, when it was taund that each appointment could not do given in View of the policy decision of the government dated 20~01-1998 /i {Annexure R4), eervices of the petitioner were terminated by impugned order dated 23~Q5~2QOQ {S} t have neard learned counset for the reepective parties and perused the :!;{JQrCa$. ”g 1‘ 9 I W There is no meteriat on record to Show not has it been submitted that the tespondente chaitenged the order dated 01 -1 249% paeeed by the Tribunal in C.!t,t\éo.1t§§ of 1994, tn so tar as obsewation regarding consideration of the eat-.9 of the petitioner is concerned. The obeervation of the Tribunal that the oetttioner may he accommodated in eome other isost‘, if it is tying vacant, attained tinaiity. it thus became obiigation of the reepondents to censider the eaee of the petitioner for accommodation, in desefthere ie a vacancy. Reepondente neither sought review of the order of the Tribunal on the basis of 7 “redder dated 2Qn91-n‘ie98 (Annexure R4) nor aesailed the validityof euch oheewation rnade by the Tribunat in any higher Court it appears that in View of the obeervetion mate by the Tribunat to censider the case of the petitioner for 1d: -' ‘ \ \ \ Emmmmatlmian in the event o§ vacancy, hi$ case was considered by the iegpandents arm: an erder of appointment was isgued m 13—01-1999 (Annexure ;%-«1$)on a vasan‘; 903i of Asgiatant Teasher in Primazy Scheol, $amnapur, Block K3wardha. The d§8cret§en having been exercised by the respcndents in fuiiherance cf what wac obsewed by the Tribunal in its order dated 01-12-1998. mete? net have been changed by the respondents in View of the circular dated 2Qw01-v4x998 (Annexute t 4). tt is not a case where after the issuance ef the {tirectien e? the Tribunat a new poticy decision wee taken by the gevemment. The eat- en which the oeder was passed by the Tribunal i.e.01.—12—1998, the eaid enema? dated 20~0149§8 wae vety much in existence. It is also not a case that the appointment was obtained by the petitioner by any snpptessien er tntstegatesentatien. ln this vtew et the matter, tespendents were estopped from cancelling the <19) nettttoner’s appointment dated 13014999 by impugned arder dated 29-06-2000 {Annexure 9—25), Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29—06-2000 is hereby :et aside. As the petitioner has been continuing in service in View of the interim enter eaten 24~07~2000 passed by the Tribunal; no further orders with regard to payment ef eatery in respeet of the interregnum period are necessary. There sheii he he crders as te cests. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastavag Judge Tumane