yy's's^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WntPetiitionNo, 293 of2006 PETITIQNER : Snit Riikhsana Eraki W/o Shri Parvez Ahmed, aged about 31 years, R/o Sundar Nagar, Pendra Road, Gaiirella, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSVS . ®' RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Througli the Secretary, Urban Administration & Department Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector, District Bilaspur (Chhatdsgarh). 3. Nagar Panchayat, Gaurela Through its Chief Municipal OfHcer, Nagar Panchayat Gaurella, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 4. Chief Municipal OfFicer, Nagar Panchayat Gaurella (Pendra Road, District Buaspur (CG), (WRrr pETmoN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) fSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aanihotrt, J.) Present : Shri Mamndra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Amit Verma, Advocate for tfae petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General with Shri U.N.S. Deo. Govt. Advocate forlhe State/respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Prakash Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 & 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 05 ofMai't 1. The petitioner, by Ihis petition, ehallenges Ihe validity ofthe order dated 12.01.2006 (Aimexiire P/l), whereby, appointment ofthe petitioner on the post ofUrdu Shiksha Kamii Grade II ia Nagar Panchayat, Gorella was cancelled on aecount ofthe facts that on scrutiny it was found that the process for selection was not done in accordance with niles. Further, order dated 03.01.2006 (Annexiire R 1/7), issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur, was also soughtto be quashed. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.05.05 (Annexure P/3), fhe petitioner made an applieation for appointment onthe post ofUrdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II. The petitioner was selected and wgfs posted at Goveniment Mishri Devi Girls Middle School, Gorella vide order dated 17.06.05 (Aimexiire P/5). The petitioner, accordmgly, joined as Urdu Shiksha Kanni Grade II in Govenmient Mislm Devi Girls Middle Sehoo!, Gorella on 01.07.05 (Annexure P/6t. 3. The Collector, Bilaspur, oa the basis of complauit made by one Sliri Dwarka Prasad Soni aiid on the basis of enquiry report subniitted by the Tahsildar, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, came to tfae conclusion that the recruitm^nt process for the post of appointment on the post of Urdu Shiksha Kmmi Grade II and Grade III was not followed in accordance with law and despite, their being stay ofthe recmitment process, tfae interview was coiiducted. Accordingly, the Collector, Bilaspur, by order dated 03.01.06 (Aimexure R 1/7) in Revenue Case No. 23/2005-06 eanceiled the selection process and directed the Chief Municipal OfScer, Gorella, to conduct fresh selection process for appointment onthe post ofUrdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II, iii aocordance with law. Consequently, the impugried order dated 12.01.( (Annexiire P/l) was passed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, fhe petitioner filed this petitioti, seeking a direction to quash the impugned order dated 12.01.06 (Amiexure P/l) and order dated 03.01.06 issued by the respoadart No. 2 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur. 5. Shri Manindrd Shrivastava, leamed senior coumel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that once the petitioner has beeu appointed on the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II throu^i proper seleetion process, selection process may not be quashed without afFording an opportiinity of liearing to the petitioner. The impugiied order dated 12.01.06 was issued on the basis ofreport submitted by the Tahsildar conducted at the back ofthe petitioner. The respondent authorities have not applied their mind before passingthe impugned order. 6. Shri A.S, Kachhwaha, Leamed Deputy A_dvocate General appeanng for the State, per contra, would submit that on the basis of complaint filed by one Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni, tfae additional Collector, Pendra Road, directed the respondent No. 4 on 08.06.05 (Amienire R 1/2) to condiict the recruitment process, in accordanee with law, as there was a complaint made by one Sbj-i Dwaika Prasad Soni and Shri Murari Lal Agrawal oa 24.06.05. Three members conunittee w?"—aanaiateiteLgo I into the recmitment process ofUrdu Shiksha Kanni Grade II and Grade HI as fhere were several complamts. Oa 18.07.05 (Anne3aire R 1/4), Special Seeretary, Urban Adimnistration Development Department, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, wrote a letter to all the Conmussioners and ChiefMumcipal Officers, to stay the procesg ofrecmitaient on the pogt ofUrdu Shiksha Karmi immediately. 7. Shri A_S. KacUiwaha, Leamed Deputy Advocate General, would fiirtlier submitthat admittedly no opportimity of hearing to the petitioner was given as this is the basie requirement when pumtive order is passed against the employee. However, the entire process ofselection was vitiated, therefore, the select list and appointment thereofwas cancelled without a-ny notice. 8. It was found that contrary to the order dated 18.07.05 ofthe respondent No. 1, the respondeiit No. 3 and 4 proceeded with fhe process ofrecruitment and appointed the petitioner oa the post ofUrdu Shiksha Kanni Grade II. In the selection committee, in place ofthe Block Education OfTicer, the Assistant Project Officer was kept. A report of the Tahsildar (Annexure R 1/5) was submitted to the Sub-Divisional QfEcer, in tam, he sent report to the Collector, Bilaspur (CG) on 05.12.05 (Annexiire R 1/6) observing that the respondent No. 3 and 4 have not followed the process of recniitment in accordance with law and despite stay of the recniitment process, proceeded with the interview and appointed the petitioner on Ifae post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II. 9. The respondent No. 3 and 4 have chosen not to file any retum and make any submission duringthe couise ofhearing. 10.Be that as it may, in the present case, adimttedly the petitioner was given appointment. She worked for more than six mouths, thus, she is entitled to / opportiuuty of hearing wfliich is the touchstone of the basic^princiole of natiiral justice and fair play in action. 4 ll.The Hon'ble Supreme Coi»rt in case of Slirawan Kumar Jha & others Vs. State of Bihar & others , whereia the appointment ofteachers were caaceUed without giving them an opportunity ofhearing, obgerved as under: "It is not necessary to go into all these questions. In the facts aiid eircutiKtances ofthis case we are ofthe view that the appellatrt should have been given an opportunity of hearing before eancelmg their appointments. Admittedly, no such opporta.uuty was afTorded to them. fi is well settled tliat no order to the detriment oftfae appellant could be passed without complying with the niles ofnatiiraljustice." 12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court iii case ofD.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A- Industries Ltd. & others , considering ths concept ofopportanity ofhearing observed as uader: "The cardinal pomt that has to be bora in mind, in every case, is whether the person concemed should have a reasonable opportDaity ofpresenting his case and the airthority should act fairly,justly, reasonably and impartially. In other words application ofthe principles ofthe natural justice that no man should be condermied unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affeeting the rights ofthe coneemed person. It is a fundamental rule of law that no deeision must be taken whieh will affeet the ri^it of any person without first being uiformed of the case and yving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. Aji order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the niles of natural justice. Therefore, fair play in action request that the procedure adopted must bejust, fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise ofthe power and its impact on the riglits ofthe person affeeted would be mconformity withthe principles of naturaljustice. 13.The said principle is reafSnned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University & others , vvherein it is held tfaat: "Tlie law is seltled that non arbitrariness is essential facet of Article 14 forwarding the entire reatm of State action govemed by Artiele 14. It has come to be established, as a fiirther corollary, that Ihe audi alteram partem facet ofnatiiraljustice is also a requirement ofArticle 14, for, nafiiral justice is the airtithesis of arbitrariness. In the sphere of piiblic employment, it is well settled that any action taken by the employer agamst an employee must be fair, just and reasonable which are components of fair treatment. The confennent of absolute power to tenninate the serviceg of an employee ig antifhesis to fair, just and reasonable treatmeirt." 14.Furiher, in the matter of Caaara Bank & otfiers Vs. Debasis Das & otfaers and Caaara Banlc Vs. V.K. Avvastfay , ths Honfcle Supreme Court observed as under: "The first and foremost principle is what is conimon'y kiiown as audi alteram partem nile. It says tfaat no one slioulc! be condeanied uriieard. Notice is the first limb ofthis principle. It must be precise and unambigiious. It should apprise the party detemiinatively offte case he has to meet. Tiine given for the purpose should be adequate so asto enable him to make liis representation. Iii the absence of a notice of tlie kmd aiid such reasonable opportimity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice oftlie case before any adverse order is passed agauist hun. It is after all an approved rule of fair play and one ofthe most important principles ofnaturaljustice." 15.Applying well settled priaciples oflaw to the facts ofthe present case, it is erygtal cle'ar that the petitioner has been conderaned uiiheard by issuing the impugned ordere. Tfae actions of the respondent anthorities are contrary to well established principles ofnatiiral justice and fairplay in actioa. 16.1ii vaew ofthe foregoing, the inipugned order dated 12.01.06 (Annexure P/l) and 03.01.06 (Anne3aire R 1/7) are quashed. The petition is allowed. However, the State airtliorities may take appropriate action, if so advised, after following due prcwess of law, afiFording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. No order asto costs. 1. AIR1&91SC310. 2. 1993 (3') SCC 259. 3. AIR. 1998 SC 3261. 4. 2003 (4) SCC 557. 5. 2005 (6) SCC 321. Sd/- S.K. Agnihoti'i Jucig.; Salm