IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 9388 of 2008. Reserved on : 21.12.2010. Decided on: 21.02.2011. ____________________________________________________ Rajneesh Kanta. ….Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1NO. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. G.S. Rathore, Advocate For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as Volunteer Craft Teacher on 05.08.1992. In sequel to letters dated 25.10.1999 and 17.08.2000, he was offered regular appointment. He was issued Special Certificate on 31.07.2000. However, the same was withdrawn vide office order 31.12.2002. 2. Mr. G.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client has not been heard before the issuance of order dated 31.12.2002. In other words, his submission is that there is violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the certificate has been issued 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.No. - 2 - erroneously to the petitioner and the same has been rightly withdrawn. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has obtained the Special Certificate vide Annexure A-5, dated 31.07.2000. However, the same has been withdrawn without hearing the petitioner on 31.12.2002. He has suffered civil and evil consequences. Petitioner has neither mis- led nor mis-represented the authorities at the time when the certificate Annexure A-5, dated 31.07.2000 was issued in his favour. He was required to be heard before the decision was taken detrimental to his interest. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the certificate has been issued erroneously to the petitioner and the matter was also enquired into by Mr. J.C. Bharti, Deputy Director of Education. However, fact of the matter is that there is violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rampal versus State of Haryana and others, (2009) 9 SCC 187 have held that in such like cases principles of natural justice should be followed. In this case also, there was allegation that the petitioner has obtained the certificate of Scheduled Caste wrongly. Their Lordships have held as under: “5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and other materials on record. In our view, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order should also be set aside on a very short point. It is an admitted position that before cancellation of the caste certificate of the appellant, the authorities ought to have given an opportunity of hearing - 3 - to the appellant and also to contend that the Certificate issued to him was a "Scheduled Caste Certificate" and, therefore, it cannot be quashed. 6. In view of the fact that the principles of natural justice was admittedly violated in this case, the impugned order must be set aside and the concerned Tehsildar must be directed to decide the dispute regarding the caste certificate of the appellant after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order, preferably within three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to him.” 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 31.12.2002 is quashed and set aside. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge February 21, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - `