^-'-- <s^<^; /-- £ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS) No. ^l ^^ / 2008 PETITIONERS 1. Amar Singh Raj, S/o Gait Ram Raj, aged about 43 years,. ;< Lecturer History , Govt. Higher ^i y^y ^Siy ^/y{f<\ ^. ^' RESPANDENTS ^^ y PN Secondary School, Odekera, Block- Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) P.S. Yadav, S/o Late Nanki Dau Yadav, aged about 49 years, Lecturer, Political Science at District Education and Training Institute (Diet), Janjgir/ Block- Navagargh, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Chatur Singh Chandra S/o Late Shri Bhoj Ram Chandra, aged about 47 years, lecturer Economics at Janki Devi Mahant, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Saragaon Distt. Janjgir Champa (c.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through:- The Secretary, <1/ 2^ Department of Education D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Public Instruction Directorate Chhattisgarh, Government Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Upper Director, Department of Public Instruction Directory, Raipur Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE WRIT, WRITS DIRECTION ETC TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (S) No. 7126 of2008 PETITIONER : Ainar Singii Raj & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARIICLE 226 OF THE CONSTn'UTlON OF IND1A SB: Hoii*ble SIu! Satish K. Agmliotri, J. Present: Shii Aml Singli Rajput Advocate for the petitioner Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel La^/yer forthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passsd on 31st day of Mareh, 2010) 1. Challenge m this petition is to fhe order dated 10.10.2008 (Aimexure P/5) whereby promotion of tfie petitioners to the post of Lecturer by order dated 27.09/2008, has been cancelled aiid ftie order dated 02.12.2008 (Amiexure P/7), whereby the representation of the petitioners agaiiist the cancellation of their promotion was rejected by the Commissionen Public Instmctions, Govermnent ofChhattisgarh. 2. The indisputable facts, iii nutshell, are that the petitioners were working as Physical Training Instmctor when their case vvas considered aiid reconitiiended fbr promotion to the post ofLecturer by the Departmental Promotion Comimttee after following due process of selection. The petitioners were promoted to the post of Lecturer, Histoiy, Politica! Science and Economics, respectively and thereafter, they joined accordingly. Within a period of 14 days, to their utter surprise, they received the order dated 10.10.2008 whereby their promotion was cancelled on the ground that lliey were not eligible for promotion. Thereagainst, the petitioners made representations which were also rejected by a common order dated 02.12.2008. Thus, this petition. 3, According to Sliri Rajput, leamed counsel appeaiing for the petitioners, the post of Physical Trainmg Instmctor is equal to the post of Upper Division Teacher and as such under the provisions of Clihattisgarh School Shiksha Rajpatrit Sewa (Shala Stai'iya) Bharti Tatha Padoimati Niyaiii, 2008 (for short 'the Niyam, 2008), the petitioners are entitled to be considered and promoted to the post ofLecturer. Even otherwise, the appomtment has been cancelled without affording an opportunity of ^^ ^^ ^"^"^"^ ^•",.€ '^ "'• <s%<-^ 7. hearing. Thus., the impugned orders are vitiated and desei've to be quashed. Per contra, Slm Roy, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondents submits that the petitioners are not eligible to be considered for appointmeiit on the post of Lecturer as Schedule II to the Rules, 2008 cleariy provides that 1000/o posts of lecturer would be filcd up from feeder cadre ofUpper Division Teachers havingthe requisite experience oftliree years. Since the promotion was not in accordance with law and tlie facts are admitted, no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was necessary as it would have become a mere fonnality. Heard leamed counsel for the parties, pemsed the pteadiiigs and documents appended thereto. Schedule II to the Rules, 2008 provides for appoiiittiient oflecturers on promotion from the post of Upper Division Teachers cadre having different experiences. Reliance of flie petitioner that the order dated 02.12.2008 itself indicates that the PTIs are equal to Upper Division Teacher, the petitioners are eligible to be considered for promotion on the post ofLecturer, is not sustainable as on cai'eful consideration ofthe entii'e order, it is clear that there is no provision for promotion to the post of Lecturer trom the post of PTI. It was clarilied that the PTI can be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant District Sports Ofiicer and Lecturer, Physical Trainmg only. With regard to show cause notice, law is well settled that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket. It. depends on other lactors also, vtz. whetiier afifording opportunity ofhearing would seive any purpose, when the facts are admitted.In the case, the legal position is clear, even the qualiilcation ofthe petitioners are also admitted. Thus, it was not necessaiy to affbrd oppoitunity ofheaning before passing the impugned order. In the case of Ashok Kunwr Sonkar v. Unwn of Indw & Others1, relied on by the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: fi26. This brings zis to the question as to whether the principks of natural jiistice ^yere required to be complied ^ith There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the azidi alteram partem is one ofthe basic pillars qf natural justice whiah means no one shonld be ' {(2007) 4 SCC 54) condemiied unheard, However, whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarily m a case ofihis nature the same should be complied •with. Visitor may m a gfven situation issue notice to the employee who would be effected hy the ultimate order that may be passed He mcy not be given an oral hearing, but may be allo^ed to make a representation in wntmg.fy "27. It is also, however, yvell settled that it cannot put any straitjacket formiila. It may not be applied in a given case imless G prejudice is shown. It is not necessary ^here it would be afutile exercise." "28. A cGiiri ofla\v does not insist on compliance yvsth ujseless formality. It wtil not issue any such direction where the result ^wouldremain the same, in vie^ ofthe fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences. Furthermore m this case, the selection of the appellant ^was illegaL He was not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it ^ould hcsve been a futile exeraise to give him an opportunity ofbeing heard. " 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court m Vlveka Naitd Sethi v. Chairman. J&K BanleLtd & other^, held as under:-. "22, The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitt-ed, an enqiiir)? ^vould be an empiy formality. Even the principle of estopple ^ill apply. (See Gurjee^wan Garewal (Dr.) v. Dr. Sumitra Dash) The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to thefact situation obtaming therem. It cannot be put m a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. (See State of Pzmjab \\ Jagir Singh andKarnataka SRTC v. S.G.Kotturappa)" 10. Looking from all angles, the petition fails aiid is accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the letter dated 20.08.2008 (Aimexure P/8) whereby all the District Education Officers have been directed to send the infbrmation with regard to ACRs and other relevant inlbrmation of the Music Teacher and PTIs for consideration of their candidature for promotion to the post ofLecturer, the same may be done at the earliest. Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ; (2005) 5 SCC 33T)