f!( (og) g mg )c cm 25w gg w) 33 §¥ mwmm @gmgmm mam-a ©,An252 ox 1993 (3C3 «QsyYLlw 803 5 m,3 Smnker Rama Ram/Gupta sen 9f $hri.I.P.Gupta, aged 30 years, r/o Panda-Tarai. Tah. Pandariya, Distt. Bilaspur. APPLICAIH’ : Vs. ESPONDENTS: ' 1. State ef Ma&hya Pradesh thrcugh the Secreta‘ry, Schocl Education Depttt.‘. Vallabh Bhavan. Bhapal. Deputy Directar of Educatien, Bilaspur. 3. m Asstt. District Inspécto: o£ Schcols', Parikshetra - Bttar Pandariya, Distt. Bilespur. APPLICATION u/s 19 or THE Ammmsmmm mmumw Aer, 19%. DETAILS OF APPLICATION Particulars e‘f me applicant: As détailea abave in cause title. 2. ParticaLars of the respondent-g: ‘ ‘ As .éetailed above in cause title. 3%‘Particulars c£ 'the order against gilich thgJ application is maég: This appli‘cation'i‘s maae against tha order No.5thapana- 3/Ju,Pra./93~94 Bilaspur dated 7.9.$3 issued by 3156 respondent x0. 2. whereby the ay§1icant's services have been terminated with immediate effect. 4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The applicant declayes that the snbject—matter ef the erder against which he wante redressal- is within the jurisdictien ef the Tribunal. c B m $ AQE m R mm W3; . JwPC5/7o$/c 1171 zoo mm Raw?» WWW mafam WWW WfWR mmm *aifcmm SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J. 5.4.2010 Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, cunsel for the petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents. This petition has been led by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 07.09.1993 (Annexure 12) by which services of the petitioner have been terminated with im ediate effect. Case of the petitioner is that he had applied for appointment to the post of teacher and afte having been interviewed by Teachers’ Selection Committee, Mungeli he was appointed as Junior Teacher in Junior Primary School, Bisesra, Block— Pandariya vide order dated 6/7th April, 1993 (Annexure ‘ 2). Later on, a letter was issued to the petitioner on 18.6.1993 (An ure A-5), requiring him to submit his original certificate and creden als relating to residence etc. in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Rerenue) Mungeli. In compliance thereof, petitioner had also submitted 85 A—9). However, later on (Annexure A-12), services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that he is resident of school is,situ‘ated. ounsel for the petitioner is that after \\ selection, he was duly appoted on the post of Junior Teacher in omicile certificates (Annexures A7, A—8 de impugned order dated 7.9.1993 ndataria and not Bisesara Where the l‘ w Contention of l‘earned i ‘ e , n x i a mm aizoo m 11313? (gafgaia) WWW ammm WWW (a, WW W$IQR auifaqm Junior Primary School, Bisesa‘ra, Block—Pandariya. The services of the petitioner were terminated on the allegation that he does not belong to Bisesara. Before recording such a finding and terminating his services, petitioner was entitled to due and proper opportunity of hearing consistent with the requirements of principle of natural justice. His submission is that there was no such condition imposed on the candidate that he should be: domicile of Bisesara only. It is also submitted that there are other teachers who were also not from Village Bisesara and their domicile was not that of particular Village but they were appointed on the post of Village in that very school and are continuing in service, whereas petitioner has been singled out for hostile discrimination. Per contra, submission learned counsel for the respondents is that it is apparent from the ugned order itself that the petitioner had procured appointment on the basis of his domicile. Upon enquiry, it was found that petitioner did not belong to Bisesara where the Junior Primary School is s'tuated and for which petitioner was appointed. It is also submi ted that petitioner, was granted due opportunity of hearing inasmich as he was required to submit his s. certificates and credentials b issuing a notice and he was given full opportunityHto place on reco d documents to establish his place of domicile, and after eonside ng the certificates submitted by the petitioner, it was fouhd that petitioner did not belong to Bisesara leading to issuance of the imp ned order of termination. .f i p Wm m zoo mm (Wu) mafgaamém WW ’%€?W zj¢ %aif%manésr Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to allow the petition on the short ground that impugned order of termination has been passed without giving due and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Though opportunities were granted to espondents to file return, no return has been filed. On 27.1.2010, last: pportunity of filing return was granted, but even then no return s been filed. Even otherwise, from averments made in petition, it is found that the case of the petitioner has been that there was no r. quirement of resident of the particular village as a condition of his ap ointment. He further submits that there were other candidates who wer, not domicile of village Bisesara but yet they were appointed. Without commenting upon the eligibility of the petitioner to be appointed on t e post of Assistant Teacher, this Court finds that it is not a case of forgone conclusion. Under these circumstances, it was obligat on the part of respondents to give the petitioner an opportunity of ring before taking away his source of livelihood by terminating his ces. Consequently, this pe tior/L is allowed. Impugned order of termination dated 7.9. 1993 (Ar nexure A—12) is hereby set aside. It shall be open:for resp ndent No.1 (now State of Chhattisgarh) to give proper-opportunity of ring to the petitioner and decide the case with regard to eligibility. If upon enquiry, it is found that the petitioner did not suffenfrom ny disqualification and was eligible, he “A 3 :a o ' a s i » a mm zoo m m m (1Hf3aia) mmwfa m B, FI Tere shall be no order s to costs. h zE