Cf/a‘a7 @ 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Ice.) w.P.s No... :7 z.L.q ( 12009 1" SiNwE EENW Zakia Sultana, PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Administration Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. °/ The Commissioner, (Appellate Authority), Directorate, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur (C.G.) / 3. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Deputy Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- A W/o Shri Abdul Wahid, Aged about 42 Years, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Pandri Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. / State of Chhath'sgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Urban HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.7241 OF 2009 (Writ Petition under Articles 226 ofthe Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :v Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit 'Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 & 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 4m day or April, 201 1) By thispetition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 6-10~2009 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development,-Chhattisgarh, Raipur, by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel-appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — lll (Urdu subject) on 20—12-1996. Thereafter, the tenure of the petitioner was extended from time to time. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade — Ill on regular basis. During the service period the petitioner acquired higher qualifications after obtaining due permission from the respondent authorities. However, all of a sudden the Deputy Commissioner, ' Municipal Corporation, Raipur, issued a show cause notice dated 24-7-2008 (Annexure — P/22) mentioning that when the qualification for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade lll in 1998 was higher secondary, asto why the petitioner submitted the application stating her qualification as higher secondary, though she was having only 10"“ class pass certificate. The petitioner submitted her PETITIONER Zakia Sultana . Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others \\\\ 7 x. reply on 28—7-2008 (Annexure — P/23). Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities without appreciating the reply submitted by the petitioner in its letter and spirit by order dated 16—9-2008 (Annexure — P/2) terminated the petitioner from the service. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was rejected by order dated 6-10-2009 in an illegal and arbitrary manner by holding that on the date of appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — Ill the petitioner was not in possession of requisite qualification. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the Commissioner—cum-Appellate Authority, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that a show cause notice was issued on 24—7-2008 (Annexure ~ P/22) asto why the petitioner was shown as qualified in service ' book when she had obtained only the qualification of 10‘“ and the subsequent acquisition of certificates of 12th pass, B.A., D.Ed. and M.A. were added later on to which the petitioner replied on 28—7-2008 (Annexure —.— P/23). The employer had already accepted the 10th class pass certificate as the required qualification of higher secondary, as after appointment the petitioner was granted permission to appear in class 12f“ examination, B.A., D.Ed. and MA. degree examinations subsequently. Thus, the understanding of the petitioner to treat $ 10‘“ class examination as higher secondary was also accepted by the employer and, as such, at this stage the order of removal without following the due process of law is unsustainable. \ / 6. In the show cause notice, it was not stated‘asto why the petitioner may not be removed from the service on submission of 10m pass certificate and not being eiigible on the date of appointment. Thus, the petitioner has no opportunity to explain asto why she should not be removed from the service. The show cause notice issued by the reSpondent authorities is not in accordance with the we“ settled principles of law laid down by this Court in Mrityunjay Shukla & Others v. Municipal Corporation, Raipur & Others’ and Durgesh Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & othersz and other connected matters after relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court. ln the result, the impugned order dated 640-2009 (Annexure — P/1) is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order asto costs. / * Satish K. Agnihotri M 7/, Va Sdj‘ i H r ” r l Judge i iriw" VHHV \ 21200.9) 1 CGLJ 97 2 WP (S) No.3o12 of 2009 (decided on 7-8-2009) \i \