CD IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE Petitioner Respondents ^ ^^ ^ /b '..•^A\/r . <^^^'^^ ^'^sw /:<f\>'" .<>>-''- .^ ^y^-" <^" 2-3L|-3 W.P.('S)No. ^:^-^'- 2011 Awnaram Sahu, Aged 47 years, S/o Shri Ramji Sahu, Head Master, Govt.Middle School, Borsi (Phingeshwar), Dist-Raipur Versus .State ofCKhattisgarh Through the Secretary School Education Department, Ministry, D.K.S., Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The District Education Officer, Raipur Raipur (C.G.) ^ 3. Biock Eaucation Officer, BteefeEducatioii-Qffice Phingeshwar Block, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ;|^!! n|!'!3SSIW!il?:BiRH(""H?&"-:':1' / ^ \ 6 -\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Manindra hflohan Shrivastava, J. Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S) N0.2943 of 2011 Atmaram Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitutionof India Present:- Shri Arun KumarAgrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 22nd ofJune, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner has assailed correctness and validity of order dated 11-05-2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Education Officer, Raipur, by which, promotion of the petitioner through limited departmental examination, 2010 has been cancelled and the petitioner reverted to the post, from which, he was promoted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had participated in the process of selection through limited departmental examination, pursuant to advertisement dated 18-02-2010 (Annexure P-3) and after selection, he was promoted to the post of Head Master, Middle School vide order dated 23-08-2010 as modified vide order dated 27-08- 2010. However, thereafter, on several Writ petitions filed by number of Teachers challenging selection of process on various grounds, which induded validity of certain provisions contained in Chhattisgarh School L -2-- s Education Gazetted Service (School Level Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2008"), Entry No.2 of Column No.7 of Sr.No.3 of Schedule-11 of the Rules of 2008 was quashed and the advertisement issued for appointment to the post of Head Master, Middle School was also quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though vide order dated 05-04-2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, only a part of selection was quashed, misconstruing and misinterpreting the order of the Court, the respondent authorities are now canceling the promotion order of the petitioner also, which does not follow as a consequence of the order dated 05-04-2011. Learned counsel further submitted that the petition was allowed only to a limited extent and the order did not have the effect of canceling the whole process of selection, but only in a limited manner. He further submits that even though, advertisement was quashed, the petitioner's promotion could not be withdrawn on the basis of the order of the Court without affording properopportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the process of selection for appointment by way of promotion through limited departmental examination initiated vide advertisement dated 18-02- 2010 was challenged on various counts in numberof writ petitions, which were decided by a common order dated 05-04-2011. He further submitted that the Qivision Bench of this Court held that non-inclusion of Headmaster Primary School having requisite qualification in Entry No.2 (a) and (b) of Column No.7 of Sr.No.3 of Schedule-11 of the Rules of 2008 is discriminatory, as the same deprives eligible Headmasters of Primary ^s- ^"& School from participating in the departmental limited examination. Learned State counsel further submitted that when the Court found that the entire class of Headmaster Primary School was illegally excluded from selection process for promotion to the post of Headmaster Middle School, the Division Bench of this Court quashed Entry No.2 of Column No.7 of Sr.No.3 of Schedule-11 appended to the Rules of 2008 as also quashed the entire advertisement, and therefore, there is no scope left for the State to continue the petitioner on the promoted post as the entire process of selection has been declared illegal. 5. The Division Bench in its order dated 05-04-2011 passed in batch of writ petitions, examined challenge to the constitutional validity and the condition of conducting departmental examination, as contained in Rules of 2008. In each writ petition, different grounds challenging validity of the certain provisions contained in the Rules, and the process of selection was challenged. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was also subjected to the same process of selection, which was under challenge in the batch of writ petitions. After detailed consideration of various grounds in the writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court noted several infirmities in the process of selection and held that non-inclusion of Headmaster, Primary School having requisite qualification in Entry No.2 (a) and (b) of Column No.7 ofSr.No.3 of Schedule-11 ofthe Rules of 2008 is discriminatory, as the sam'e dsprives eligible Headmasters Primary School from participating in the departmental limit examination. Finally, the Division Bench ofthis Court quashed the Entry No.2 of Column No.7 ofSr.No.3 of Schedule-11 of the Rules of 2008 and consequently, the advertiseinent issued by respective Eiil? !'113fi?A'*«K'ff!! T •^ ^/ District Education Officers of the concerned Educational Districts for the postof Head Master, Middle School have also been quashed. 6. It is therefore apparently clear that the Division Bench of this Court has quashed the advertisement, under which, the petitioner had applied, subjected to the process ofselection and have beenappointed. There is no discretion left with the authorities except to cancel the appointment made pursuant to the advertisement, which has been quashed by the Division Bench ofthis Court. In these peculiar circumstances, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was entitled to opportunity of hearing has to be rejected at the threshold. In exceptional cases like the present one, where order of cancellation of promotion has been passed on the ground that the process of selection has been quashed by the Court, could not be assailed on the ground that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before canceling the order of promotion. It is a case offoregone conctusion. 7 In view of the aforesaid, 1 do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same are accordingly dismissed summarily at the stage of motion itself without issuing notice to the respondents. No orders as to cost. Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge TUMANE