HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition 1S) No. 1252 of 2005 Pyarelal Dhratlahre/Lahasee. Applicant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others. Respondents / 8 /08/2008 Post for pronouncement of the Judgment and Order on Sdl— ‘ _ gatish K. Agnt‘notn r I Judge / / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pétition 1S) N0. 1252 of 2005 ‘l APPLICANT : Pyarelal Dhratlahre/Lahasee aged about 29 years, son of Shri Raghuwar Prasad, Asstt. teacher, Junior Primary School, Putki Khurd Pandariya, resident of Village Sagounadih, Post Kishun Garh, Tah. Pandariya, District Bilaspur VERSUS l§ESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh through its Secretary, Department of School Education Scretriate, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2. Dy. Director, Education office of the Dy. Director Education District Bilaspur. 3. The Collector, Bilaspur. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur. 5. Assistant District Inspector of School/A.D.I.S., Pandariya Range, Distt. Bilaspur. 6. Tiwarilal son of Katik, Cultivator, resident of village Bodhipara, Tah. Pandariya, Distt. Bilaspur. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No, 1 to 5. None for the respondent No. 6. A4 (Passed on‘ this [afliay of August, 2008) .1. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 2904.1994 (Annexure A/5) whereby, selection of the petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant Teacher was found as illegal, and in his place, the respondent No. 6 was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant Teacher, He further challenges the legality of the order dated 06.05.1994 (Annexure A/6), passed by the Deputy Director, Education, District, Bilaspur, whereby, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled, being erroneous. The petitioner prays for the consequential relief and grant of salary w.e.f. April, 1994 onwards and regularization of his service in the regular pay scale. Originally, the application was flled before the M.P. State Administrative J L ” . / 2 @ Tribunal, Jabalpur, and was numbered as O.A. No. 3653 of 1995. On dissolution of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and numbered as above. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant Teacher through selection conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer (for short ‘SDO’) and the President, Teachers Selection Committee, Lormi. The petitioner was called for interview to be held on 08.02.94 pursuant to intimation dated 24.01.94 (Annexure A/l). The petitioner was accordingly selected for appointment in Primary School Putkikhurd, Block Pandariya, District, Bilaspur, by order dated 28.02.94 (Annexure A/2). The petitioner joined the service on 0903.94 (Annexure A/4). Thereafter, by order dated 06.05.94 (Annexure A/6), the selection of the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of complaint that his selection was erroneous. Thus. this petition. Shri P.S. Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that once the petitioner has been selected and appointed on the post, his services can not be terminated without affording an opportunity of hearing or following principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing to put forward his case and no enquiry was held in presence of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned orders dated 29.09.94- (Annexure A/S) and 06.05.94 (Annexure A/6) are vitiated and deserve to be quashed. Per contra, Smt. Smita Ghai, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. l to 5 would submit that on the basis of complaint: made by Shri Bodhan Singh, Shri Sita Ram Yadav and Shri Inderman, an enquiry committee, comprising of Shri G.S. Dhananjay, Additional Collector, Bilaspur, Shri E. Kujur, Deputy Collector, Deputy Director, Education and Shri Parasar, District Coordinator, was constituted, and in @ enquiry, it was found. that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal an other candidate namely Tiwarilal i.e. respondent No. 6, has obtained more marks than the petitioner. Thus, the select list was cancelled on the ground of being irregular and erroneous, and the respondent No. 6, who obtained ore marks, was selected in place of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned orders dated 29.09.94 (Annexure A/5) and 06.05.94 (Annexure A/6) are proper and justified. She would further submit that it was not necessary to issue show cause notice to the petitioner, as for want of opportunity of hearing, the case of the petitioner would not have been prejudiced. The enquiry committee has examined all the documents and marks obtained by all the candidates, and thereafter the impugned orders were passed. The petition deserves to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, after perusing the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner was selected through proper selection conducted by the selection committee. The petitioner was appointed on 28.02.94 (Annexure A/2). On the basis of complaints made by Shri Bodhan Singh, Shri Sita Ram Yadav and Shri lnderman, the Collector, Bilaspur, constituted a committee as stated above. The Committee examined the entire selection of the Junior Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools Suretha, Putkikhurd, Baniyakua and Devpura. In the concemed Primary School i.e. Putkikhurd, it was found that in the interview, the respondent N0. 6 secured 62 percent and the petitioner secured 51.3 percent. No application was made from village Putkikhurd as required that the preference should be given to the residents of concemed Primary School. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 belonged to the neighboring villages i.e. Sagounadih and Bodhipara respectively, within the radius of one kilometer. Thus, keeping in View the better performance of the respondent No. 6 in the interview, having the ‘\ \/ m \ @ a similar conditions, was selected and the selection of the petitioner was quashed. It is not a case where without holding any enquiry, selection ol‘ the petitioner has been cancelled. A detailed enquiry of all the selectiona conducted by the SDO and the President, Teachers Selection Committee, Lormi, was examined and irregularity and glaring errors were found in all the cases. Thus, the impugned orders were passed strictly on the basis of merit. The method of selection was marks obtained in interview alone. The order dated 29.09.94 of the Collector, Bilaspur (Annexure A/S), reads as under: "2.WurWmgmqéWW$ Wmmmw%§(m)mmgm mawmmanY62%af$WaWm $WWWW$WW51M$$ 91m almamumwmaam Ww§imgwgédan§anwgmaei$r$ WWWamwwamqmi—gen W ewwqx‘iam‘a1%3%.a%m1¥i$ W$mwm#wmamm WW51.3%%mWW%W Wanmsz%wmrffmai$mmw W%,$rmmmmf%?il" 7. In the matter of Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. and others], the Supreme Court observed as under : “The principle Of natural 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.) v. 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 v. Jagir Singh and Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa. ” The above ratio was referred with approval in the matter of P.D. Agrawal Vs. State Bank of India and Others2. 9. Applying the well settled principles of law on applicability of principles of natural justice to the facts of the present case, wherein, the glaring ':2005(5)scc 337 ., ’ 2;006(8)scc 776 ‘ \ ./, mhu f7 irregularities were writ large in the selection, it was not necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as the facts are crystal clear as above stated. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihntri 'Jndge