IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) $3 W.P. S No.:......... 008’ vs E11TIONE ,L UttamKumar Yadav Aged about 37 Years S/o Shri Netram Yadav R/o Viilage/Post Sambaipur, Tehsi! Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: /1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Panchayat & Social welfare D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) Coltector " Durg, (Chhattisgarh) 3. Janpaq Panchayat, Nawagarh Through Chief Executive Officer, District Durg, (C.G.) PETIHON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: '\ . A A5 stated above in the cause title. 2. PAR‘IICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: PR: @ ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SI NO. 5558 OF 2008 PETITIONFR Uttara Kumar Yadav Versus ESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General for the State. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this sot“ day of March, 2010) 1. Chaiienge in this petition is to the order dated 25—8-2008 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the Collector, Durg, whereby the appointntent of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — III was cancelled. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projectedby the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade — lll on 20-7-2007 (Annexure — P14) for a probation period of three years by the respondent Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh. The petitioner, during his probation period, received a‘show cause notice dated 16—2—2008 (Annexure -— P/5) so asto expiain the allegation of submitting fake documents. The petitioner repiied to the show cause notice stating that the documents alleged as fake documents are not fake documents and the same are genuine and bone fide documents. The District Education Officer having considered the reply of the petitioner came to the conclusion that there is no mention of t ,‘x Tl l I l l t l l l I I I I it I,-: I R @>; experience certificate in the records and, as such, the experience certificate was the fake document. The matter was referred to the Coiiector. The Coliector after having considered ail the aspects of the matter in his order dated 25-8-2008 came to the conclusion that the experience certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was bona fide and genuine document. However, the appointment order of the petitioner was canceiled on the ground that the petitioner does not have minimum 8 months teaching experience. Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing, as in the show cause notice dated 16-2—2008 there is no mention that the experience ceitificate submitted by the petitioner along with his application form was not treated as experience certificate because he does not have teaching experience of more than 6 months. Thus, the petitioner was not in a position to respond to’the show cause notice in this regard. On the other hand, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing for the State, while supporting the impugned order submits that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that there is no challenge to the repott of District Education Officer. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appende‘d thereto, Rule 5 of the ' Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 clearly prescribes that maximum 8 months teaching experience will be considered as one l / year for the purpose of award of marks on experience. There is no marks for having teaching experience for less than 8 months to be deemed as experience of one year. The petitioner has not produced any document indicating the fact that he has worked for more than 6 monts. It is admitted position that the petitioner has h worked for 6 months. Secondly, the petitioner has an opportunity before the Collector to put forward his case. It is well settled principle of law that if the facts are admitted, compliance of the principles of natural justice becomes empty formality. The Supreme Court in Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. & Others1, observed as under. “22. The principle of nature/justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. (See Gurjeewan Garewal (Dr.) Vs. Dr. Sumitra Dash) The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vaccum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case (See. State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh and Karnataka SRTC Vs. S.G. Kotturappa)”; 8. The ratio laid down in Viveka Nand Sethi (supra) was referred with approval in P.. Agrawal v. State Bank of India D and Othersz. 9. ln the case on hand, the petitioner has not produced any certificate showing teaching experience of more than 6 1 (2005) 5 SCC 337 2 (2006) 8 SCC 776 months. Thus, requirement of issuance of show cause notice in this respect is a mere fcrmaiity. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is made ciear that if any candidate is appointed without fulfilling the requisite qualifications, his case may be considered, decided after passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law. There shall be no order asto costs. 1 Sd/- ,Satish K. Agnihotri i Judge _ 1"