^mRs ^ S^ ^ ti tittei iul D- rr:^ ^^' i^[LiB^'<L?i <^2 1 ->T3 BEFORETHEHON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARH ATBILASPURfC.G.l W.P. fSl N0. (*%% /2009 PETITIONEfl RESPONbENTS /^ .** -** ^ /•' ^' Bhishmadeo Mota, S/o. Shri Harihar Hota, aged about 25 years, R/o. Village & Post Ganekera, Tahsil- Basna,District Matiasannund (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The SeGretary, Department bf Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Developnrierit, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipyr (C.G.) lv^"':: - " : ';. ';:''' : - •,..:. . 3. the Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) ^^ ' 4. ~ Collector, Mahasamund, Disfrict Mahasamund (C.G.) v^" !-. • ,'1,.' •..:;:... : . 5. Janpad Panchayat-Basna/Through: $, Chief Executive Officer, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ^" i. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE GONSTITUTIClK OF INDIA PARTIGULARSOFTHEPETITtONER As mentioned in the cause title. :^<^- :^: ^-; '¥t:'.;.'. ;-^^^'. fflOH CQURT QFCHHATnSGARHAT BILASPUR WRITPETITION(S') No. 1558 of2009 PETITIONER : Bhishmadeo Hota. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh &0thers. Kf .-^ Postforpronouncementofjudgmenton%?dayofMarch,2010. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge M wx-s •SSH HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S) No. 1558 of2009 PETITIONER : Bhishmadeo Hota. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh &0thers. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. SISSs ^'y^,- Present: Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to 4. Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. JUDGMENT (Delivered on ....«?-?.day of March, 2010) Challenge in fhis petition is to the order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 4, i.e. the Collector, Mahasamund, whereby fhe appointment ofthe petitioner alongwith 18 others by order dated 18.07.2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No. 5 i.e. Chief Executive OfFicer, Janpad Panchayat, Basna, on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, was cancelled, and further, the order dated 24.12.2008 (Atmexure P/l) passetfby the respondent No. 3, i.e. Director Panchayat, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner alongwith others, against the order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/2) in Appeal Case No. 163/B.121/07.08, was rejected upholding the order passed by the Collector. The brieffacts, as projected by the petitioner are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.02.2007 (Annexure P/3) issued by the respondent No. 5, for selection and appointment on available vacancy of 89 posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, the petitioner alongwith others ^ [•:A 3. made an application. A select list of 81 candidates was declared on approval by the General Administration Committee. Out of 81 selected candidates, 38 persons joined fhe service on the basis of appointment orders. The petitioner was one of the 38 persons who also joined the service on the basis of appointment order dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure P/4). 43 posts remained vacant on account of non-joinmg of the remaining candidates. Though, there was no waiting list, a new list of43 persons for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III was declared on 12.10.2007. Pursuant to the select list dated 12.10.2007, 10 persons joined and 33 persons again did notjoin. Further a Hst of 115 persons for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III was issued on 6.11.2007. On a complamt, a Committee was constituted by the ChiefExecutive OfBcer, Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund to enquire into fhe appointments of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, piirsuant to three different lists issued by the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Basna. In enquiry, subsequent list of 43 persons and 115 persons dated 12.10.2007 and 06.11.2007 respectively, were found defective and illegal. Accordingly, subsequent select lists of 43 persons and 115 persons were quashed on the basis ofrecommendation made by the Committee. On the basis of report submitted to the Collector under section 85(1) ofthe Panchyat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the respondent No. 4 cancelled the appointment of 19 persons including the petitioner also, who were appointed by order dated 18.7.2007 on the basis offirst select list (>f81 persons, without assigning any reason. Thereagainst, the petitioner alongwith others preferred an appeal before the Director, Panchayat in appeal case No. 163/B.121/07.08. The Dkector, Panchayat found that the appointment of the petitioners \/ rl '-'^sswi—i??.'''''? / •p3|p3ire3 ^(SmpjoooB SBM }U3uqmodde siq pvm 9g"OS oi 9£'£9Iuo-g psonpsj SBM jsuoppsd sip 0} pspJEMB s?[.rcm sq} 'snqj. •Xyiiovfpvs lus^diuoo sip Xq psnssi }OU SBM 3UTCS 3Ip SB psjpguBO osya SBM spinS ptre ^noosjo s^ogiyao sip 'jgipmj •psanps.i SBM s}Bogi}j30 soususdxa jo siseq sq} uo jsuoppsd Stft O^ pSpJBMB S5[JEIU 3Ip 'snqj. "Buseg 5[00(g jo s|ooqos sip jo ^IIB m punoj }ou SBM sureu siq se 'jsdojd jou SBM 'euseg 3[30ig 'iMSpBqiio-^ 'iooqog uepiSBqg ucf jo 'jsuoppsd sqi Xq psonpojd 'sieogiuso soususdxs sqi }eip punojg sqi uo psipoireo SBM jsuoppsd sip jo lusuqmoddB sqi }Bip punoj SBM 1; MpunsjsqM QOOZ 'PV uopBuuojui 0} iqSrg sip jspun uopBauoju; psmB»qo jsuoppsd sqj. 'Z.OOZ'/.O'SI ps}Bp isi( psps }S.ig sip 0} }uensjnd ps^modde SBM jsuoppsd sqj, "SIBOS ssem uo psniuiuioo sspuBinSsui jo vmoowe uo uoipsps sip jo Suiqsenb jo sseo B iou s; sitp }Bqi tiuiqns jsqyiy ppoM ueqpBJj uqs •sumusg 10 jsdojd lou SBM siusumoop aip )Bip pcj sqi psniiupB }ou seq jsuopipd sip SB q^iM p3i|dmoo sq o} psjmbsj SJSM sopsnf p.m^BU jo s3|di3uud oiseq sjaqM SSBO (BnpiAipu; UB si siip }eip };roqns ppoM jsuoppsd sip joj gmjesddB psunoo p3iires( 'UBi(peJj uqs •uonosd siip 'snqj. -^ajpus jraip ui psiisouBO SJSM. /,OOZ"II"-90 PUB /.OOZ'OI'ZI p3»Bp sisii psps }Hsnbssqns sqj, •/,OOZ"/,0"8I P3VeP ISII psps sip spiA psimodde SJSM oqM siuue-^ eqs5[iqs 8£joV{0 SIUUB-S Bqs5[;qs 51 jo ^usuquioddEsq} guiipouBO roj UOSBS.I Xire psssnosip }ou SBq jsp.io siq iii 'jopsjia sqj, -UOSBSJ Kire SuiuSisse inoqiiM 'punuresBip]^ 'ieAqouBj B];J- 'Jsogjo SApnosxg jsiqo sip o) ssuiunno^ sip Xq psuiHiqns yodsjjo sisBq sip uo 'MB( ip;M souBpjooaB ui }ou SBM s-igipo ipiAAguop £ / -''^l fFS ^q psA^MS ussq SA^q MOpq sjsoigo sip }Bip sjBsddB y -jsuoppsd sqijo asvo' m lpu& pasasdsip SBA sopsnf lEjnisu }0 S3(dpliud sip AqM 0} SB uopTSod sip oi psiJSApe }ou ssq ptre SUOSB3.I AUE U3Al8 IOU OS(B seq '(EsddE m ).eABq3UBj 'jopajiQ sipjo apjo »usnbssqnssiy. '/.OOZ.ZI'IE ps^P -ispJO siq m jsuoitpsd sip jo psdssj m SmqiKuB psjapisuoo-pue psssnosip ssq jopsflo^ sip mn Viddai Annbus sip ui uoissnosip (reisp Aue .isipisu ST SMip 'suos.isd si Jsipo. ipiMguop jsuoiipsd sip jo lusuquiodd^ JO UOpE(p3IIB3 JO 3SB3 iq •U3'5[B} }OU 3I91A. t \ JO SUOISIAOjd SIp .ispun psjmbsj SB pAojddB ureijso 'Apuooss puB is;i §upreAAUB §mABq^noippa Apsjg psqsiiqnd SBM sures sip SB ]e33\\] punoj a.18M qoiqA 'i]j apBJQ im.tB^ l[E'>[Siqg jo ]sod sip uo suosisd gll jo uoipsps o^ psdssj ipiM ^.OOZ'II'90 P3 P 1S}1 psps PUB suosjsd £(7 jo uoipsps oi psdsaj ipiM /.OOZ'OIZI P3 P :tsTI psps sip ipiM iiesp X(ueuiud OTq 'puniiresBqB]/< 'iBXBqsuBj B(if 'jsogjo SApnosxgjsiq^ sip 01 panmiqns vodai sii ui ssnmnuoo Annbus sqi ^i(l •(uspiAS s; »i 'o)3j3ip pspusddB s^usumoop puB sguipBsjd sip psstusd 'saiyBd sip TOJ (3suno3 psures^ presq SUIAEH •uia^aijrsip ui SB jpM SB ^usumSjB (BJO UI £ -Ojs[ }U3pUOdS3J sqi Xq spBiu uoissiuiqns sip idope pinoM fr oi I 'ON »uapuodssj/s}Bissip JOj gmresddB psunoo psaiEsi 'Ko-g uqs •jsuopipd sip o} Suiresqjo Atiunuoddo inoqc •isdsiqM ou si sjsip ing •psuiurexs SJSM 'uopBuiiuexs sip jo pnpuoo m s^qisuodss-i SMM oqAv 'sjsoijjo psiusouoo sip ((B uisjsqM spBiu SEM Ajinbus Areuiuiipjd sqi iBtp }dsox3 '.isuoppsd sip jo gseo uisapsnf ]Bm}BU jo ssidpuud aqi jo soireiidiuoo-uou o} preSsj ipiM uoissimqns Aue spEiu ^ou seq psunoo siii •spcm SJSM siusuquiodde gn XqsjsqM ^OOZ'II'90 PS P 1SII :>33ISS SIP I3W P III sp^JO !" 3 Bqs3[iq§jo isod sip uo ps^moddB SJSM suosjsd £^XqsjsqM /.OOZ'OI'ZI psiBp sis;| psps gip jo Smqsenb ssgpsnf KjpoisBq 'pueq jsipo sip uo 's •oj\[luspuodssj sip joj SuuesddB psHnoo pstues^ 'BABisBAijqg ijqg ^) '^y; ^ subsequent development in issuing select list dated 12-10-2007 and 6-11-2007 for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III, while considering the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced experience certificate (Annexure P/7) which appears to have been counter signed by the Disto-ict Education OfGcer, Basna alongwith other signatories, and a copy of. Scout Guidecertificate, which also appears to have been singed by the Block Scout Commissioner, Block Education Officer, Basna. 9. In reply filed by the respondent No. 5, it has not controverted any averments made by the petitioner except that the subsequent.select list dated 12.10.2007 and 06.11.2007Was not approved by the General Administration Committee of Janpad Panchyat which was a mandatory as prescribed under Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. It is stated that the Committee has afforded opportunity to all the officers who were involved in the conduct of examination of appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. But it is not the case ofthe respondent No. 5 that any opportunity ofhearing was afforded to thepetitioner. 10. This Court, in Mrityunjay Shukla & Others v. Municipal Corporation, Raipw & Others , relying on Nehru Yvva Kendra Sangathan v. Mehbub Alam Laskar, State of Punjab & Others v. Constable Avtar Singh (Dead) through LRs , Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Others, State of Manipur & Others v. Y.Token Singh & Others, Jaswantsingh Pratap Singh Jadejq v. RqjKot Municipal Corporation & iKSt i^ s,.-a ' 2009(1) CGLJ 97 2 (2008) 2 SCC 479 3 (2008) 7 SCC 405 4 (2007)48cc'5?- 5 (2007) 5 SCC 65 11. 12. S*'.! 6 arwther , Inderpreet Smgh Khalon & Others v. State of Punjab & Others , Mohd Sartaj and another v. State ofU.P. & Others8, Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Others , Canara Bank & Others v. Debasis Das <&: Others , Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University & Others , D.K.Yadavv. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.,-& Others'2 and Shrawan Kumar Jha & Others v. State of Bihar & Others , deeisions rendered by the Supreme Court, observed as under: "21. There is a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of naturaljustice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts situation obtained therein. Thus, the principles of naturaljustice may not be required to be followed in the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondly, that it is practically impossible or highly improbable to afford an opportunity ofhearing in the event of quashmg of selection on account of irregularity eommitted on mass scale, or en-masse cancellation. Thirdly, no useful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity ofhearing." Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand where certain individuals have been taken out from a proper select list which was not vitiated in its entirety, and subsequently, even on enquiry on the ground of supply of forged documents, compliance of principles of natural justice is a miist. It is well settled that the avdi alteram partem is one ofthe basic pillars ofnaturaljustice which means n6 one should be condenmed unheard {See : Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra)} For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P/l) and the order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/2) in ' (2007)108cc 71 7AIR2006SC2571 8 (2006) 2 SCC 315 9 (2005) 5 SCC.337 IO(2003)4SCC557 " AIR 1998 SC 3261 ]2(I993)3SCC2?9 "AIR1991SC310 13. 14. llRU respect ofthe petitioner, are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 4, i.e. the Collector to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh, if so advised, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case and thereafter, pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Resultantly, the writpetition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order asto costs. '' s--^f--"fe-'s--;-- --«~e""- - Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri ^—^-^1 Judge •i^l i • • 1 "•s^ ^