/^^^-l^^ SJ' SiS^ /28©l *.' t, ^^L-^^i ^f^^^ d * -rtt^^ Afo.... f'te^today,:./.ff ^^D'f tfsl'rl-~^--sss^ For~^'Si.t,ar, ^•isy^ S&E' B'4^te6,.;^&E^i^B»e,.v.12tB ?. Aaiaofc iKttaiar ^;B-1.tttaj|SSaB;s*>^e, •^3S&~. ,Al|s'SBes^^®n1^^^.1B8tIag8^-saiEM.,,: .SBaatisiffi?:^^®,^;.' .-'• •." :.'' ':".;i ^; ^^••^-^^^ sss :t.)' fj ^f'^[ ":;^;ii ^ S!N©i-EBENeH:HGNSBLESHRiMftNtNDRftMQHAN^HRiVftSTAyA.J. HiGHGOURTQ^OHHATTiSQARH:BiLASj=UR WRiT PETITiON {Si N0.3669/2005 Ajay KumarSingh and othere Versus Commandant, 12"' Bdtation, Special ArmedForcearsdanother FQRPRONOUNCMENTOi^ORDER ^^as^ ^0^1 (0» ^^^a"'s»ase \ 'isa ;ffiBI' KWSHS Si;';.^.-:' • ".:.: • ' . "'ii. HiQHCOURTOFCHHATTSSGARH:BiLASPUR SinflieBench: Hon'bfeShri Maniiidra MohanSHrivastava.J, PETlTiONERS RESPONDENTS WRiTPETmONiStNG.3S63/2005 Ajay KumarSingh and others Vereus Cbmmanciant, 12"' Battalion, Speciat Armed Ffires and another ^ SKW, !^;i l'; Present: - Shri Pawan Kesharwarii.eounseiferthepetitioners. Shri B|iasl<aFPayasi, Panel l-awyerforthe Stete/respondents. ORDER • . (Passed on ...../.^.June, 2010) By this petition, petitionera seek to assaii iegaiity and valictity of order dated 24/04/Q1 (Annexure A-1) passed byrespondent No.1 wherebyservices of petitioners have been terminated by giving one month's notice stating Iheir services as notreauired. 2. Facts necessaryfor acijudjcation ofcontroyersylnvoivedmthepetitionare that the petitipners clalmed to be bonafide Fesidents of existtng state of Madhya Pradesh and after reorganization, petitioners elaimed to be residents of successor state of Ghhattisgarh. For the puiposes of making recruitment to 'rarious posts of Consteble in 30"' Battaliori of Special Armed Force, Jagdalpur, an advertisement vras issued vide Annexure A-2, pubiished in' the iocal news paper inviting appiications from eiigjbis candidatss. Ail the pstitiQners appiied forlne post of Constabia in respohse to the said advertisemsnt and uffered their candidature. iiMl': BfE After seiection, upon sciutinizing the eligibiiity and quaiifications, getitionere were foynd fit for appointment and upon their seiection theywere appointed on the postotcqnstabieandofdersofappointmentwereissued^^i ttieirlavourGoliectiveiypiaced-on Fecord asAnnexure A-Sexcept ttiecertiflcate of appointment uf petitioner No.2. Petitioner NQ.I joiried his duiy 6n 3Q/09/98. JiioughthecertificateofappointmentuTpe{itionerNo.2hasnotbeenft!ed,ithas been pieaded tMat hejoined his dutyon 16/10©8. Petitioners afterjoining their dutiesthroughproGessofrecroitmentcorfflnuedtpworkuntiltheimpugnedorder was passed on 24/04/01 by^which thejr setvices were terminated by giving 008 month^ nOUce steting fhattheirsewkses are no longerrequired. fl<t B[-^ 3. Assaiiihg the oreier of termination, ieamed counsei for the petitioners submits that the petitioners irore dyly selected fer appointment to the.post of consiabte as they fuifiiied the ellgiliiiity pritena ^ prescribed in; the advertisement. After having worked for aimost 2 years, sereices nave been terminated without affordipg petitioners any ppportunity of h ri"9-^^^ N submission (^ iearned CRunseiffor the petrUonerSi is.that the ^ reason benjnd termjnatipn w^ not simpliciter as statoa inthe jn'^^ bufwhathasbeenstateuinttetetyrnisthatth&p^ionerew^ as the petitioners acquired educationai quaiification in Uttar Pradesh, whereas the Poiice Head Quarter had issued aclfGuiarQn 21/08/38 ft»reompiianceufG.A.D. ^ireulaFdated27y3ffl8oftheStateG6vemmentthatthacandklateShouldhave passed the HigherSecQndaryorgraciuaUpnfron^schoQi/coii^esituatedJnthe state of MP. oniy. it is argued by learned counsei for p^tior^rs thatfrom the return, it is clear that the petitjoneis after having been setected upon senjitiny of their quaiificanon and havjng been ^pointed y^re terminatedafter more'lh^ iB'Bffagy ^^w^^t;:^: a3i&~Si^^^^.•••i-^-l'-iiyS^SSsSSi-SasSSi'.iS^S^ s^ I... ^ years ottheir appointmenton the ground that they are not etigibie. Petjtionere were therefore entitled to an dpportynity of hearing before termination fFoni their services; in the aiternative, submission of iearned counsei for the petittoner is thattheciFeuiarissuedbvtheGovemmentcioesnothavetheiorceof^law.No' such conditioh was stipylated in the adveriisement, pursuant to whici'i, the petitionere had appiied fbr appointment. Refemng t6 the provisions contained in M.P.A3.G. PoiiceRegulations, it is argued that there is no provision under the said reguiaUons prescribing any'such eiigibiiiiy criteria ter appointment to the post of eonstabie. it is next urged that present is not a case where petitioners bad practieed any fraud or misreptesentetf the appointing authority to procure appointment. Therefore, their seroices cQuld' not b& terminated once they are appointed after due sei8Gflon,upon scrutiny pfthejneiigtbilttyqualjficationsancl the resDondents wers estdDbed from terminatina their sen/ices on the said ground. in supportofthiscontentiOn.ieamedGounseiforthepetitipnersreiied uponUiedecisionofSupremeCourtinthecasesOfN.T.DevinKattiandothere v. Kamafaka BuKic Senfic®Commissioin and others. ilSW) 3 SURre^ Couri Cases, 15T. Hemani Malhotra v.iltigii Coyft CT^^ Suoreme CourtCases.11 and Tamil Nadu Comouter SC B.Ed.G/r.Welf. Societv v.HiflherSecoridarySchpdiComDuterJecfcAssH.&Ors.2POSy.T. (3) 70. . : :.' : : :. 1:1 ,; . ::1 :;' 'J,'; : :' ^ '4. Per contra, submission of learried counset for the responderits is thattne petitioners had no right to hoid post as they were temporary employees. Refemng to their orders of appointment piaced on recorel as Arinexure R-1, Annewre R-2 and Annexure R-3, it is submitted ttiat petffloriers were appcunted untii further orders in temporary capacity and their^emces were liabte^^ I! ,[ 1^^^^;K- AUB;(O 9SB3 8 }ou SBM l! •(e-y ainxeuuv) gs/tl./s PUB fe-y ajnxeuuy)86/o i./9l'(l. -y sjnxeuuv) 'es/SO/Oe P&iep sjsp-io ®P!A9|q^suo3 se tusy} paiuiodde 'Atiiiqeiins pUB AiijtqiBije .sasuoiffiad tiliM pSusitBS Bujsq jaye siuepuocisaj pue y^iiiqiBiis JISlltOlpJBBSJIlfllMpeSIBJSBMUO!^^^ pssiejd seieoyiijea uoiiBoyiiBnb jBUQnBonpe eij} paauitruos SABL! Q} peiunsgid WB }nq sjeuoj]|}ed sifl p ^HjiqBijns siji pess&sse A|UO lou uoiiaeies 10 sgsoojd eiBUi siuapuodsey •lueuissiiJeApe PIBSSJOJB 04} Q} luensind ejntBpipueo Jieq} peniujqns sj9uo!}j}9d "ci"!ft! 1" 8}eis ai-B U! p8}Bntjs eBejioo/iooijos stR uioy A|u6 suoiiBayijenb ieuoHB3npe pguiKiqo 9ABM' Plnoys saiBpipueo eqi ?BtB uone!rlyHS qons ou SBM ejsifl ieij} SMO^S A|jB9i3 ajqeisuoo se pa(Uj6ddB ®jesjsuogiigd 4ojtjM 0} tuen^nd 'wsiiu9S(p&ApB sifl yi lesnjsd v •g ; •Spjo39j9y}p8S(U9dpUBS9|iJBdeq}jQ(!8Sunoopeu.ree|pjBeLi8ABij | —9 •eojisnf [Kiriiey .fo se.idiouud p UO!}B|OIA ^o punojS eu} uo epise }ss eq oi SjqBij (ou SJB sjspjo psuBndiui 94i 'sjo.jsjeiii •ejqissod S! uoisniouoo jo .M91A jsiflo ou pue uoisniouoo euo6ej<y ^0 sseo B si luesaid }BIB psnGje s! }| "siqiBije }ou Anuejedde 8.18 sjsuoiij}ed SIJISJSUA SSBO B si luessjd pue soiisni' !ejh}Bu ,)o sejdiouud .)o UOJ}B[OIA .{o punojB sqi uo Ajuo .isiiej AUB o} pengue iou eje s.ieuoiyisd IB^} siuepuodsw eqi jo^ jesunoo payjBSj Aq psu'iuqns OSJB si }| 'd'M}0 swseqt ui p3}Bn^jssuo!}n}!isuj [euojieonpe ujojjiou pue tjsepejcj Jeunjo ,9}BtS9iituioJjuo!}BU!UjBX9 BujAojBnbJjoqipsssBdpBtjAsiflsepetUioddBAjBuojM. ajem puB 8[q}B!j& }QU elsm sjauotiiisd eijt 'ajo^ajeqj. •ysspejd BAilpe^ p e}B}s ®i|}urpeteniis aB?!!ooflooi|3s uio-y uoiiBnpejB/AiBpuooss -iSMBil-! 94? pessBd ®AB4pinoys ssiepipUBo^Ey} (9-y wnxeuu^) ge/gO'^Z P®iBpjBjnaiio•a"¥'9spiA pequosajd Apesjje pey }U®1-"UJ9A09stfi "eogou s,q}uoui B BuiAiB Aq psieuitujg} iff -"•^ff^'-'' d ^ fraud or misrepresentation on the part irf the petitionere nor is it a case of^^^fc^^ respondents that the peijuoners misied w4iii& submMting their certificates any stage of seieGtion that they have acquired educaticinal qualiflcatiQn from scriool/college situated in the state of Madhya Pradesh. Petitionere were appointed.intheyear 1998 and they continued to'work for aimost 2% years whentheimpugnedoidereofteTminationwerepassed. 7. A perusalof the G.A.D: cireuiardated 27/03^8 (AnnexureR-Sywould show that various departments were advised toamend reeruitnient ruies for appointment to the post in their respectiv®departments to prescribe that candidates shouid have pbtained eClycational qualification from educational institutions situated in the state of Madhya Pradesh. Respondents have nut brought to the notice uf tiiis Court any specific statutuiy rules. Hov^^ CourtisinciinedtoacceptthesubmJssiQnofieatnedcounseifoithepetitioneTs that provisions contained in M.P./G.G, Poiice Reguiations whieh have statutofy foree do not Gontain any Sueh provision to the effect that'the candidate foR appointment to the ^ ppst Qf constable should have aequired educaBQnai quatificatton ontylrom sehool/coilegessituated in the state ofChhattisgarh, if the respondents were keeri to prescribe such condition, it ought ^ included in the advertisement inyitlng appiieations. However, in the advertisement aiso, no such eiigibility conditlon was prescribed which ied each "&nd every person desiroys of seeking apppinttnerits, including the petitiQners to appiy pyreuant to the said advertisement. Thus, itcannot be sajd that it is aease ofaforegoneconciusionnorisitacasewhere^opportunifyrfhearingwouldba an empty fprmaiity. Petitionere couid tiave satjsfied the authority that in^^ absence of any such eiigibiiity Griteria stipuiated in the advel'flsement or in the o ^ Poiice Regulations and there being no amehdment in the Poiice Regulations in viewof theG.A.D. cireulaFyated 27/03^8, after havingbesnseiectedand appointed,their Servicescouid notbeterminated on thesaidground. 8. Submjssion of ieamed counsel for respondente that petitionere' seroices •being temporary couid be terminated by giving a rnonth's riotice, as no ionger required, cannot be accepted. From the parusai of the retym, it is clear that the inain operative reason for forroinatiQn was that the petitioners were not eiigjbie forappointmentandstatingthatseFvicesareasnotongerrequired.wasmereiy-a cioak in the gart of which peiitionefS were terminated. The impugned'order acted to their serious prejudice invoMng ,ciyil consequences. Principles of naturaijusticethereforerequiFedtheres|wndents;beingslate,toatieast^ive opportunity of hearing t6 the pstitiuhere before terminaUQn on SuGh a ground of aileged in^igibiiily. it isac^sewheFethe petitiorier's eligibiliiyv^rescr^ andthenonlyappointmentorderswereissued.lfrespondentstiaveanyciouM wfihreaardtotheNigibJiiiyofthepeti{ioners,principiesofnaturaljuyi(», ahu equity obiige responderrts to hear the petitionere before takjng any actjon deprh/ing them uftheir liveiihood. Present is not an exceptional case ofsuch a~ nature so as to warrant application of useiess formaiity theory. It is nota case where it can be said that even after gmng'an opportunity of hearing, no other' view would have been possible except th&one taksn by the responetente.; <^.. . '. • • . •• : ' .' • • : • - . -.....'''. : ..'.••:-. ••. • • •• .' ••.•.•••'•. ••••••.. •• • ' . • ....•• ••..' 9. i am, therefore, oif ttie conSJdeired.opinionthatimpugnfiiEloreiersufFers from utter vioiation of principle& of naturai justice and the resporidente were obiigedtp6fferpetitiQnereanopportynityufiiearingbeforetermtnati6n,fromthejr iliiJu^JL. isa;* servrceonfliegroundthattheyarenoteljgibi&astMayobtaJnedtheireducatiooai quaiificatJonsfromedUcationailnstitutionsoutsidethestateofM.P./C.G, 10. Submissjon of learned cpunset for respondente tBai the impugned order was slmpiiciter asthe ofder of termination is simpliciter and the services have been terminated by giving a month's notice, therefore, notwithstanding whatever has been stated in the return, oniy the reason stated in the order was reievant cahnot be accepted. Respondents have stated in their afRdavit that the petitioners were terminated as they were found ineiigibieon account of the fact that they acquired edyeationai quaiifications from the educationai instituttons situated in thestate of Uttar Pradesh and not in the state of M.P. and therefore their appointment was ih violation of G.A.D. Gjreuiar aated 27W3^S (Annexure R- 5) andPoiiGeHeadquarterscireuiarciated 21/08/9ff (Annexure R-6). The impugned order therefore cannot be sajd to be simpiicitBr. In a case, where the impugned order dbes not contain any stfgma but from the retum of the respondentsthemainoperativereasonforactiOnarefoundtouestigniatic.the temiination cannot be termed as sjmpiiciter. , 11. in thefinal anaiysis.theimpugnedorderedated 24/04/01 (AnnexuriaA-1) in respect of the petitioners are set aside beirig iiiegai and inoperatiy®in law. Pstitioners shail be entitied ' for reinstatement in service. Taking into cons!deration,thedrcumstancesofthecase,petitiorierewoui<lbeen{itled{ooniy^^ 25%ofbackwages.PetitJonisthereforeaiiQwedtotheextentindfcatedabove.: Thereshail beno ordere astb coste. SdA Manindra Mohan Shrwastava .} Judge -*°?*~"-^.