IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.9723 of 2008 Date of decision : September 28, 2011 Manu Mahajan …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner had filed the present petition as Original Application, before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking the quashing of order dated 29th September, 2003, copy Annexure A-7, whereby his services have been terminated. The said Original Application was filed in the year 2003 before the Tribunal. On the abolition of the Tribunal, in the year 2008, matter came to this Court and was registered as the present writ petition. 2. Petitioner, alongwith seven other persons, was appointed as Laboratory Attendant in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh and posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Lahla in Kangra Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… District. Appointment letter was issued on 20th April, 2000, copy Annexure A-1. His services were terminated vide order dated 7th January, 2002, copy Annexure A-2, under Rule-5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, with the observation that the interviews had not been held in accordance with the established procedure and certain irregularities had also been committed and the selection process was not fair and impartial. The order further stated that on enquiry, got conducted by Director of Education, it was found that selection process was not fair and proper and record had been tampered with to manipulate the selection process to give benefit to the near and dear ones of the then DEO and the Superintendent, working in his office. 3. Aforesaid order, copy Annexure A-2, was challenged, by filing Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal. Learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application, holding that order of termination had been passed without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and, thus, there was violation of one of the basic principles of natural justice. Services of other seven candidates, appointed by the same selection process, had also been terminated. Those seven candidates had also filed Original Applications and …3… the same were also allowed, with the same reasoning as that of the petitioner. 4. Orders of the learned Tribunal were challenged, by filing writ petitions in this Court, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court dismissed those writ petitions and upheld the orders of learned Tribunal, but made observation that the respondents, after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, by issuing Show Cause Notices to them and considering their replies, if any to such notices, and hearing them, in case they desired to be heard in person, could pass appropriate orders. Copy of the order, passed by this Court in the said writ petitions is Annexure A-4, while copy of the judgment of the Tribunal is Annexure A-3. 5. After the decision by this Court in the earlier writ petition, Show Cause Notice Annexure A-5 was served upon the petitioner by Deputy Director of Education, Kangra at Dharamshala. Petitioner was called upon to show cause why his services be not terminated, as the entire process of recruitment was unfair, for the reasons, which were listed in the Show Cause Notice. Those reasons are as follows: “1. Out of eight selected candidates seven were not even issued call letters for interview. The only candidate namely Sh. Prithi Singh S/O Sh. Hari Singh Vill …4… Langha P.O. Balakrupi Teh. Jaisinghpur was called for the interview. 2. The lists of the names sponsored by the employment exchanges have been tampered. 3. The copy of original list was procured from the concerned Employment Exchanges and it was found that the list from Employment Exchange Jawali sent to the DEO Dharamshala Distt. Kangra has been tampered whereas, the list supplied had no cuttings or overwriting. 4. It is clear that, Sh. Surjit Singh the then Supdt. O.O DEO Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra or some one else at his behest has tampered with the list by entering the name of his son Mr. Pankeshwar at Sr. No.7. 5. Similarly, the list of Employment Exchange Baijnath had sponsored the name of 10 candidates having no cutting or over writing whereas, the list in the O.O. the then DEO has been tampered by adding the name of Mr. Yogeshwar S/O Sh. Surjit Singh Atwal either by hm or at his behest by some one else. Mr. Yogeshwar is the second son of Mr. Surjit Singh Atwal, the then Supdt. O.O. DEO Dharamshala. 6. As per Himachali Certificate Mr. Pankeshwar S/O Sh. S.S. Atwal shows that they belong to Vill. Jatchad in Teh. & Distt. Kangra and hence they could have not been registered in any Employment Exchange except at Dharamshala. Hence seems fraud. 7. Mr. Pankeshwar & Mr. Yogeshwar both sons of Mr. Surjit Singh Atwal the then Supdt. O.O. DEO Dharamshala have not been issued any call letters by the then DEO Dharamshala. 8. The list from Employment Exchange Lambagaon was typed but, the same …5… copy in the O.O. the DEO D/sala also shows a supplementary list with two names namely Mr. Kuldeep Singh S/O Sh. Dharam Chand & Miss Sushma Katoch D/O Sh. Pritam Chand Katoch, both have been selected, whereas, no supplementary list was supplied by Employment Exchange Lambagaon.” 6. Petitioner submitted reply, copy Annexure A-6, in which he specifically denied that he had not been called for interview and that his name had not been sponsored by any of the Employment Exchanges, to which the requisitions were sent. Thereafter, impugned order Annexure A-7 was passed and the grounds for terminating the services, as mentioned in Annexure A-7, are similar to those listed as reasons in the Show Cause Notice, Annexure A-5, which reasons have been reproduced hereinabove. Petitioner then filed Original Application, seeking the quashing of order Annexure A-7. 7. Respondents filed reply, in which it is stated that the petitioner had not been called for interview. However, there is no mention in the reply that name of the petitioner had not been sponsored by any of the Employment Exchanges, though in the order of termination Annexure A-7, it is specifically mentioned that name of the present petitioner and six other selected candidates did not figure in the list of total 95 candidates sponsored by various Employment Exchanges. …6… 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the entire record. 9. From a combined reading of Show Cause Notice Annexure A-5 as also termination order Annexure A-7, it is clear that specific allegations, with regard to tampering of lists of candidates sponsored by various Employment Exchanges, are only in respect of two selected candidates, namely Pankeshwar and Yogeshwar, both of whom are alleged to be the sons of Office Superintendent in the Office of District Education Officer, Dharamshala. Allegations are that the names of the aforesaid two sons of the Office Superintendent had been stealthily inserted in the lists of sponsored candidates, received from Employment Exchanges Jawali and Baijnath. 10. So far as the petitioner is concerned, in the Show Cause Notice, Annexure A-5, it is not mentioned that his name had not been sponsored by any Employment Exchange, though it is alleged that he had never been issued any interview call letter. However, in the order of termination Annexure A-7, it is stated that his name had not been sponsored by any of the Employment Exchanges. With respect to this allegation, there is not even a whisper in the Show Cause Notice …7… and, therefore, it could not have been made a ground for termination of his services. Otherwise also, respondents’ plea that the name of the petitioner had not been sponsored by any of the Employment Exchanges, is belied by their own admissions on record. The earlier order of termination, copy Annexure A-2, did not say that the name of the petitioner had not been sponsored by any of the Employment Exchanges or that he had not been called for interview. Rather, the order specifically stated that the appointment was made in consequence of the interviews held on 20th February, 2000 in the Office of Deputy Director of Education, Kangra at Dharamshala. 11. Reference in order Annexure A-7 that the total number of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges is 95, is also not correct. While replying to the Original Application earlier filed by the petitioner, respondents themselves stated that 184 candidates had been sponsored by various Employment Exchanges, out of which only 95 candidates had been called. Copy of the reply filed in the earlier Original Application is available in the record of CWP No.1077 of 2002, which was filed by the respondents, challenging the order of the Tribunal in the earlier Original Application. …8… 12. In any case, as already noticed, the earlier order of termination, copy Annexure A-2, falsifies the first ground stated in the Show Cause Notice Annexure A-5 that the petitioner had not been called for interview, because in the said order Annexure A-2, as noticed hereinabove, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner was appointed in consequence of the interviews held on 20th February, 2000 in the Office of Deputy Director of Education, Kangra at Dharamshala. 13. The only reason or circumstance indicated against the petitioner, in the Show Cause Notice Annexure A-5, is that he had not been issued interview letter. That is demonstrated to be untrue by the earlier order of termination Annexure A-2. There is no other allegation against the petitioner in the Show Cause Notice, though in the order of termination it is stated that his name did not figure in the list of total 95 candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. This reference in the order of termination is incorrect, because, as noticed above, in reply to the earlier Original Application the total number of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges was stated to be 184 and not 95. Also, the Show Cause Notice and the order of termination, copies Annexures A-5 and A-7, respectively, show that lists of sponsored candidates …9… sent by only two Employment Exchanges had been tampered with. Those were Employment Exchanges of Jawali and Baijnath and tampering with was also only to the limited extent of incorporation of the names of Pankeshwar and Yogeshwar, two sons of the Superintendent in the Office of District Education Officer. 14. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that there was any hanky-panky in the matter of selection and appointment of the petitioner to the post of Laboratory Attendant. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed and the order of termination of services of the petitioner, copy Annexure A-7, is quashed. Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 28, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J