HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. : 6 of 2009 And CWP(T) No.15381 of 2008 Decided on: 16.9.2009 LPA No.6 of 2009 Rama Devi ……… Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and others ………Respondents. For the appellant: Mr.Gulzar Singh Rathour, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 4: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra & Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate Generals. For respondent No.5: Mr.R.R. Rahi, Advocate. CWP(T)No.15381 of 2008 Surender Kumar ………Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others ……….Respondents. For the petitioner: Mr.Gulzar Singh Rathour, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 4: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra & Mr.Vikas Rathour, Deputy Advocate Generals. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): The aforesaid two matters are being decided by one judgment. Though they are not directly connected, the decision of one case will have some effect on the other and, therefore, it has been decided to hear them together. CWP(T) No.15381 of 2008 arises out of Original Application No.1614 of 2007, filed by petitioner Surender Kumar before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On the abolition of the Tribunal, in terms of the Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications Act, the Original Application was transferred to this Court. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he was appointed as Part Time Lineman by Gram Panchayat Kuhal, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, on 22.4.2007 under the Drinking Water Scheme for the maintenance of rural water supply. He joined the work in the month of April 2007 and continued to work as such. On 2.7.2007, respondent No.4 i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chopal issued a letter canceling the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this action of respondent No.4 by filing Original Application No.1614 of 2007. The main grievance of the petitioner is that this order has been passed without giving him opportunity of being heard. Reply filed by respondent No.4 has been perused. Respondent No.4 states that he received a complaint from one Kewal Ram that no interviews were held and without following the proper procedure, the petitioner had been appointed. In the reply, all that is stated is - 3 - that the complainant was given full opportunity of being heard. However, there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was given a hearing. One of the very basic premises of our jurisprudence is that no man should be condemned unheard. A right of hearing is one of the intrinsic principles which runs through our jurisprudence. It is one of the basic tenets of our judicial system. We expect that officers of the level of Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner who regularly discharge judicial and quasi judicial functions must be aware of this basic principle of law. The principle of audi alteram partem, i.e. a person affected by a decision has a right to be heard is by now, too well an established legal principle to brook any challenge. The person against whom an action is taken must have a fair chance of presenting his side of the case before the concerned authority and persuading it that the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken against him are either non existence or do not justify the action. This principle of natural justice has by now been extended even to quasi judicial and administrative decision in a large number of cases. It is the first principle of civilized jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose rights or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. This principle has been totally ignored in the present case. - 4 - It is apparent that the impugned order removing the petitioner was passed without giving him any opportunity of being heard. The said order is, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice and is accordingly held to be illegal. The petitioner continued to work as Part Time Lineman in terms of the stay order granted in his favour on 13.7.2007 by the erstwhile Tribunal. We make it clear that in case he has not been paid wages till date, the same shall be paid to him within two months from today. LPA No.6 of 2009: The only question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant Rama Devi, who is the wife of Surender Kumar, the petitioner in CWP(T) No.15381 of 2008, was entitled to be appointed as Anganwari Worker. She was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Kuhal, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla on 13.8.2007. Her appointment was challenged on the ground that since her husband Surender Kumar was in semi government employment/ service, she could not have been appointed and her appointment was de hors the rules. The learned Single Judge held that since Surender Kumar was working as Part Time Lineman, Rama Devi could not have been appointed as Anganwari Worker. The only ground raised on behalf of Rama Devi was that her husband’s services had been terminated and she had been appointed after the termination of the services of her husband. Keeping in view the fact that we have set aside the order of termination of Surender Kumar, he - 5 - continues to be in service and, therefore, Ram Devi appellant is not entitled to be appointed as Anganwari Worker. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. However, we find that the Divisional Commissioner, while setting aside the order of appointment of Rama Devi as Anganwari Worker, had directed that fresh interviews of eligible candidates should be conducted by the concerned CDPO within 15 days. We have been informed that fresh interviews have not been conducted and respondent No.5 has been appointed. This cannot be done. Fresh interviews must be held. Therefore, we direct that in case fresh interviews have not been conducted, the CDPO shall ensure that the fresh interviews are conducted in terms of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, by 15th November, 2009. In view of the above discussion, CWP(T) No.15381 of 2008 is allowed and the order of termination of the petitioner Surender Kumar is set aside and the Letters Patent Appeal No.6 of 2009 is dismissed with the observations made hereinabove. In view of the final disposal of CWP(T) No.15381 of 2008 and LPA No.6 of 2009, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in both the cases, shall also stand disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), Judge September 16, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.