(T) ^.-"'".' :-^" ft? !'-^r1'?io- Sci<'0'0-.;87u/XX! . :~^i^^S^S^5S^C^B^ i * u y- nie COURT FEES ACr1g'?a IN THE HIGH COURT OFLJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl WMT APPEAL N0. WRIT APPEALUNDER SECTION 2 (11 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHl ACT, 2006 APPELLANTS (RESPONDENTSl ^.^y ^(7^N^°'T .^^>1" <^T^ 1. STATE OF CHHAmSGARH THROUGP? ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY SERVICES, D.K.S. BHAWAN, MANTRALAYA, RAIPUR (C.G.). /2. THEDIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF VETERINARY SERVICES, C.G. RAIPUR (C.G.). 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF VETERINARY SERVICES, BILASPUR (C.G.). ^ THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF VETERINARY SERVICES, SURGUJA (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS (PETITIONER) >^^ ii;i . \^.V w^f v'<'f,ift'1 IfwA' ^.'\'wi i\ •y.'^o y .., ¥:X >' ^.*r'-( ^p" INDRADEO SINGH. S/o LATE SURAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ASSISTANT VETERINARY FIELD OFFICER, SUB CENTRE KARRA, BLOCK RAJPUR, DISTRICT SURGUJA (C.G.). ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER. PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT (HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SATISH AGNIHOTRIl IN WRIT PETITION ISl Nd. 1779/2005 ON 04.05.2007. ALLOWING WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. HIGH_CQURT_OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W._A,No,_3_of20Q8 ; AppeUants State of ChhattisgarhfiE oth'ers 'Versus . :: .,. : :1'.' . : ;'; Respondent Indra.deoSingh WRITAPPEALUNDER SECTON 2(11 OFTHE CHHATTISGARH . HIGH COURT fAPPEALTO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 • DB: Hon'bleMr. I. M. Quddusi, -• & •Hon'ble Mr. Prashant Kainar Mishra, JJ. Shri Vinay Harif, peputy AdvQcate General with Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the appellants/State?- Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal,AdvocatewithShriAnandShukla,Advocate fbr the respondent. ' ORDER(oiral) ; ( Passed on this 12fh dayofAprU, 2010) . ]Per]t.M.QUddusia_J, 1. Heard learhed.counsel appearing.for the appelIants/State as well as learned counsel appearihg&r the respondent. . \ 2. This writ appeal has beeri Hled against theiinpugnedjudginentand order dated 4tfaMay, 2007, passed by the learried Single J;udge iri W.P, (S) No. 1779/2005 < Iridi-adeo Singh Vs. The State ofMadhya Pradesh & others), allowing the writ petitiori, filed by the respondent, on the grourid that the writ appeUants haye violated the principles of naturaljustice in reverting back the petitiorier to his original post as Poultiy Vaccmatdr ( %<f^ <^^^c«) for the reason that the Fespohdent did not have the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant yeterinary Field Officer (^ RtR>rt)i 2^ •t)si<4<p ). - ;r 3. Brief facts^ of the case .are that the respondfenfc.was initiallyf appointed as Pbultry Vaccinator ih the year 1984. ThSreafte?, | hs .^ was sent with others for ta-aining of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer vide order dated 24.2.1995 in which it was specifically mentioned that the trainees should submit their mark sheet and the certificate of Higher Secondary/10+2 (Intermediate) passed, failing which their names shall stand cancelled. However, the respondent was appointed as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer vide e^ order dated 19.6.1996 with other candidates, who had got one year's training. But vide qrder 31.12.1998 the respondent was \ reverted back to his substanfiye post of Poultry Vaccinator on the ground that he did not fulfill the mininium qualification to hold the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (^rg fqRx^ii ^3f a.rfSran^t). 4. The respondent's case is that he has fulfilled the qualification as he is higher secondary passed but in the m.a.rksheet, which has been annexed as Annexure P/l to the writ petition, it was specifically. nientioned that "A candidate for the Secondary or Higher Secondary School Examination who fails in one subject by not more than 5% marks or by not more than 5% in two subjects but passed in aggregate shall be allowed to pass and placed in the appropriate division. 5. A bare reading of the above quoted regulation shows that there is difference between the examination of 'Secondary' and 'Higher Secondary'. The inark sheet submitted by the respondent is only of 'Secondary School Examination'. Besides this, at the time when the respondent entered into getting ta-aining he was given an opportunity to submit his certificate and as such it cannot be said that the respondent'was not given opportunity to submit certificate. Before this Court also the respondent has failed to show that he had passed the Higher Secondary Examination. The mark-sheet, as already mentioned, which is for Secondary Examination, cannot be treated as of Higher Secondary Exaraination. 6. Therefore, when the person i.e. the respondent, does not have requisite qualification to hold the post of Assistant Veterinaiy Field Officer, it cannot be said that he was wrongly reverted back to his substantive post. 7. Learned counsel appearirig for the writ appellants/State relies on a decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others1 whrein the Apex Court in paragraph 26 has laid down as under : 26. This brings us to the question as to whether the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alteram partem is one .of- the basic pillars of natural justice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However, whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarily in a case of this nature the same should be complied with. Visitor may in a given situation issue notice to the employee who would be effected by the ultimate order that may be passed. He may not be given an oral hearing, but may be allowed to make a representation in writing." 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent place reliance on a decision in Prakash Ratan Siaha Vs. State of Bihar and others2 in which in paragraphs 9, 20, 21 and 22 the Apex Court held as under: 9. Tke respondent is an instrumentality of the State, and therefore, all its administrative decisions would be subject to the i (2007) 4 SCC 54 2 (2009) 14 SCC 690 9. doctrine of equality and fair play, as incorporated in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice. This principle of law has been laid down by this Court in a catena ofcases. 20. We fail to understand the logic adopted by the Division Bench. The reason being that it is the ceCse ofthe appellant that on a recommendation made by the Circle Promotion Committee, he was regularly promoted,to the post of accounts clerk, since he had the necessary qualification and experience and it is his further case that though he was appointed as a daily wager, right from his induction, he was directed to discharge the work ofaccounts clerk. It is also his case that on the recommendation made by Circle Promotion Comnuttee, the incharge Chief Electrical Engineer had passed an order approving the recommendation and granting promotion to the appellant to thepost ofaccounts clerk. 21. However, it is the case of the respondents that the Circle Promotion Committee had only recqmmended the change of nomenclature from that of daily wager to that of accounts clerk and. that it is not a case of regular promotion. It is their further case, even assuming it is a case of promotion, the same has been done without following the prescribed procedure and also by ignoring the claim of several other employees and therefore, the respondents were justified in canceling the order passed by the incharge Chief Electrical Engineer. 22. In our view, these are all disputed facts and the respondents without affording an opportunity of hearing, could not have taken any administrative decision unilaterally. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court is not justified in concluding "useless formality theory" need not have been followed by the respondents." A bare perusal of the above quoted paragraphs in the case of Prakash Ratan Sinha (supra) would show that the said case is related to promotion in accordance with the Rules applicable in that case, but in the instant case there is no channel of promotion \ froin the post of Poultry Vaccinator to the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer and the requisite qualification has been fixed for the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer and as such the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Prakash Ratan Sinba (supra) is not applicable in the case on hand. Further, in the paragraph 20 of the above decision in^Prakash Ratan Sinha (supra), it has been mentioned that the appellant of that case was having minimum requisite qualification, which is not applicable in 1 the instant case. 10. However, we feel that since the respondent had spent the period in getting training as well as worked as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, that period shall be counted in the service of the respondent as Poultry Vaccinator and he shall be considered for further promotion if the avenue of proraodon is available, in accordance with the existing Rules, if any, and if there is a provision in the service of Poultry Vaccinator for providing tinie bound promotional scales, the respondent shall not be deprived of getting the same because of the fact that he spent his period of service in getting training as well as working on the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer. 11. With the above direction we dispose of this writ appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 4th May, 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1779/2005. There shall be no order as to costs. ====—^= Thakur Sdi- I.M.Quddusi judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge