n '* ,^^'c r-lsc»s. ^' .fcMG*-' .>-:^r^-' ^.•-•^^3 IN THE HONfSFGlRABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. /.9/^ OF 2006 PETITIONER: v RESPONDENTS : ^l. ^w ;• /' ^'^ " /' o- v -3. Medni Prasad Badgajnya S/o Shri Shambhoo Prasad Badgainya Aged 36 years, R/o Village-Bhaskura Tehsil-Marwahi,District-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through; The Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). The Additional Collector, Pendra Road, Distr4'ct-Bilaspur. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchyat, Village-Bhaskura Tehsil-Marwahi,District-Bilaspur (C.G.) The Secretary, Gram Panchyat- Bhaskura, Tehsil-Marwahi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Vikas Agrahari S/o Ashok Kumar Agrahari Narendra Kumar S/o T.D.Vishwakarma Both Respondent 5 & 6 are Resident of Village-Pendra & Nimdha, Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER ^- / S~i HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR M WRTT PETITION No. 1914 of2006 PETITIONER : Medni Prasad Badgalynya. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRFT PETmON LTSTDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Afiarihotri. J. Present: Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate fbr fhe petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for tKe State/responderit No. 1 and 2. None for the respondent No. 3 to 5. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 26'*' day of April, 2010) 1. L^anied counsel appearing for the petitioner subniits that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Kamii Grade III on the eontract basis fbr the period from 31.10.1995 to 30.04.1998, wliich is evident from the experience certificate (Annexure P/'l). The Additional Collector, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, by order dated 28.10.2005 (Annexure P/5) has declared the appomtinent of the petitioner as Shiksha Kanni Grade III on contract basis, as void. Shri Dubey fartlier submits that the impugned order has been passed without affording an oppoilunity of hearmg to the petitioner by not impleading or noticing hun about tlie peiiding case filed at the instance of one.Vili.as Agrihari and Narendra Kumai- Vishwakarma. 2. Leanied counsel appearmg for the State/respondents 1 and 2 fairly subtiiits that ao opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. 3. Heard leamed counsel for the parties, perosed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. r 4- 5. It is found that the impugned order dated 28.10.2005 (AnnexureP/5) has been passed vvithout impleading the petitioner as party-respondent or issuing any notice or intimation to put forward his case. The basic pillar of the principles of audi alteram partem i.e. no one should be condemned unheard, has not been followed in this case. In Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Others^, the Supreme Court observed as under: "26. This brings to us the qiiestion as to whether the principles of natural jvstice were required to be complied with. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alterampartein is one ofthe basic milars of'natural justice -which means no one sho'ald be conder/ined unheard. Hovever, whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be follo'wed. Ordmarify in a case ofthis nature the same shoiild be complied -with. Visitor may m a given sitv.ation issue notice to the employee who -would be effected by the ultimate order that may bepassed. He may not be given an oral hearmg, btit may be atlowect to make a representation in writing. Applying the well settied principles oflaw to the facts ofthe case on haad wherein the petitioner was not afibrded an opportunity of hearin^ before passing ofthe impugned order dated 28.10.2005 (Annexure P/5) whereby the appointment ofthe petitioner as Shiksha Kanni Grade IH on contract basis, was declared as void, the same deserves to be and is accordinsly quashed. However, it is made clear that fliis order may not be constmed that the petitioner is permitted to continue as Shiksha Kamii Grade III appointed on contract basis, beyond the period of contract. 7. The writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Satts,.^d'^ut" Amit jud&e ' (2007:1 4 SCC 54