^ HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPllB Wnt Petition No. 295 of2<%{6 PET!T!ONER : Ku. Shabana Begiim, D/o Mohd. Islam, aged about 24 years, R/o Pendra Road, Gaurella, District Bilaspur (Cliliattisgarh). VERSUS R^.SPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throu^i the Secretary, Urbaii Administration & Depanment Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh- 2. Collector, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgai-h). 3. Nagar Panchayat, Gaurela Through its Chief Municipal Qmcer, Nagar Panchayat Gaurella, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 4. Chief Municipal OflBcer, Nagar Panchayat Gaurella (Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (CG). (WRir PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTtmON OF INDIA) TSB. Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Afflnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Amit Verma, Advocate for tfae petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General with Sfari U.N.S. Deo. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Prakash Mislira, Advocate for the respondeiit No. 3 & 4. ORALORDEB (Passed on 05°'ofMiUch, 2008) 1. The petitioner, b;?this petition, challenges tfae validity ofthe order dated 12.01.2006 (Annexiire P/l), whereby, appointment ofthe petitioner onthe post ofUrdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II in Nagar Panchayat, Gorella was cancelled on account ofthe facts that on scrutiny it was found that flie process for selection was not done in accordance with mles. Further, order dated 03.01.2006 (Amiexiire R 1/7), issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur, was also sought to be quashed. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.05.05 (Amiexure P/3), the petitioner made an application for appointmeut on the post ofUrdu Sliiksha Karmi Grade II. The petitioner was selected aad was posted at Govemmeat Middle Schoo!, Pendra Road vide order datcd 17.06.05 (Annexure P/5). The petitioner, accordingly, jomed as Urdu Shiksha Kamii Grade II in Govermnent Middle Sehool, Pendra Road on 23.06.05 (Amiexure P/6). /® 3. The Collector, Bilaspur, on the basis of complaint made by one Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni and on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, came to the conclusion tliat the recruitment process for the post of appomtment on the post of Urdu Shiksha Kanni Grade II and Grade III was not followed in accordaiice with law and despite, their being stay of the recmitinent process, the interview was coiiducted. Accordingly, the Collector, Bilaspur, by order dated 03.01.06 (Annexure R 1/7) in Revenue Case No. 23/2005-06 cancelled the selection process and directed the Chief Municipa! OfBcer, Gorella, to conduct fi-esh seleetion process for appomtaient on the post ofUrdu Shiksha Kanni Grade II, in accordance witfa law. Consequently, the impugiied order dated 12.01.06 (Amiexiire P/l) was passed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition, seeking a direction to quash the inipugned order dated 12.01.06 (Annexiire P/l) and order dated Q3.01.06 issued by therespondeiit No. 2 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur. 5. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, learaed senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, woiild submit tliat once the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II throu^i proper selection process, selection process may not be quashed without affording an opportiinity of hearing to the petitioner. The unpu^ied order dated 12.01.06 was issued on the basis ofreport subnritted by tiie Tahsildar conducted at the back ofthe petitioner. The responclent authorities have not applied their tirind before passing the impugned order. 6. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Leanied Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that on the basis ofconiplaint filed by one Slui Dwarka Prasad Soni, the additional Collector, Pendra Road, directed the respondent No. 4 on 08.06.05 (Annexiire R 1/2) to conduct the recniitment process, ia aecordance with law, as there was a complamt made by one Sliri Dwarka Prasad Soni and Shri Murari Lal Ayawal on 24.06.05. Three members committee was appomted to go iito the recniitmettf process ofUrdu Shiksha Kanni Grade II and Grade III as there were several complaints. On 18.07.05 (Annexiire R 1/4), Special Secretary, Urban Administration Developmeiit Department, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, wrote a letter to all the Commissioners and ChiefMunicipal QfBcers, to stay the process ofrecmitment on tiie post ofUrdu Shiksha Kamii inmiediately. 7. Shri A.S. Kachliwaha, Leamed Deputy Advocate General, would fiirther submit tfaat admittedly no opportiuiity of hearing to the petitioner was given as this is the basic reqiiirement when pimitive order is passed against the employee. However, the entire process of selection was vitiated, therefore, the select list and appointaent thereof was caneelled without any notice. 8. It was found that contrary to tlie order dated 18.07.05 ofthe respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 3 and 4 proceeded with the process ofrecniitment and appointed the petitioner on the post ofUrdu Shifcsha Kanni Grade II. In the selection coinmittee, m place ofthe Block Education Offieer, the Assistant Project OflBcer was kept. A report of the Tahsildar (Aimexiire R 1/5) was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, in tura, he seiit report to the Collector, Bilaspur (CG) on 05.12.05 (Aimexure R 1/6) observing that the respondent No. 3 and 4 have not followed the process ofreemitment in accordaiice with law and despite stay ofthe recniitment process, proceeded with the interview and appomted the petitioner on the post of Urdu Shiksha Kanni Grade II. 9. The respondent No. 3 and 4 have chosen not to file any rehim and make any submission duringthe course ofhearing. 10.Be that as it may, iii the preseat case, admittedly the petitioner was given appointment. She worked for more than six months, thus, she is entitled to opportiinity of hearing which is the touchstone of the basic principle of natural justice and fair play in action. 4 \\ ll.The Honlile Supreme Court in case of Shrawan Kumar Jha & others Vs. State of Bihar & offaers , whereia the appointment ofteachers were cancelled without giving them an opportunity ofheariiig, observed as under: "It is not necessary to go into all these questions. In the facts aiid circumstances ofthis case we are ofthe view that tlie appellaiit should have been given an opportunity of hearing before canceling their appointments. Admittedly, no such opportimity was afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detrinient ofthe appellatit could be pasged without complying withthe mles ofnatiiraljustice." 12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ofD.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. & others , considering the concept ofopportunity ofhearing observed as under: "The cardinal point that has to be bom in imnd, in every ease, is whether the person concemed should have a reasonable opportiinity ofpresenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. In otiier worils application ofthe prmeiples ofthe nafairal justice that no inan should be condemned uiiheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concemed person. It is a fundainental nile of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the ri^it of any person without fu-st being uiformed of the case aiid giving hini/her an opporhmity of puttiiig forward his/her case. An order involviiig civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natiiral justice. Therefore, fair play in action reqirest that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonab'e. The mamier of exercise ofthe power and its impact on the rights ofthe person afFected would be meoiiformity with the principles of naturaljustice." 13.The said principle is reafBrmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Basudeo Tiwar^' Vs. Sido Kanhu University & others , wherein it is held tfaat: "The law is settled that non arbitrariness is essential facet of Article 14 forwarding the eiitire realm of State action govemed by Article 14. It has come to be established, as a fiirther corollary, that the audi alteram partem facet ofnaturaljustice is also a requirement ofArticle 14, for, natiiraljustice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. In the sphere of public employment, it is well settled that any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fatf, just and reasonable which are components of fair treatment. The conferment of absolute power to terminate the services of an employee is antithesis to fair, jiist and reasonable treatment." 14-Furilier, in the matter of Canara Baak & others Vs. Debasis Das & others aad Caaara Bank Vs. V.K. Avvasthy , the Hoa'ble Suprsme Court observed as under: "Tlie first and foremost principle is wfaat is commonly kaown as audi alterain partem rule. It says that no one should be condenmed unheard. Notice is the fu-st limb ofthis principle. It must be precise and unambigtious. It ghould apprise the party determinatively ofthe ca-se he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so asto enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opporUinity, the order passed beconies wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice ofthe case before any adverse order is passed agaiast hiin. It is after all an approved nile of fair play and one ofthe most importaiit prmciples ofnatiiraljustiee." 15.Applyihg welS settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe present case, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has been condetimed unheard by issuing the iinpugied orders. The actions of the respoadent airthorities are contrary to well established prmciples ofiiatiiraljustice and fair play in action. 16.In view ofthe foregoing, the impugned order dated 12.01.06 (Amiexiire P/l) and 03.01.06 (Aimexure R 1/7) are quashed. The petition is allowed. However, the State authorities niay take appropriate action, if so advised, after following due process oflaw, affording aa opportimity ofhearing to the petifioner. No order asto costs. ——- Sd/- S.K. Agnihotri Judge- 1. AIR1991SC310. 2. 19?3(3)SCC259. 3. AIR 1998 SC 3261. 4. 2003 (4) SCC 557. 5. 2005(6)SCC 321. Sahu