IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 13869 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.4.2011. Sunder Singh …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and ors. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. R.R.Rahi, Advocate. For the Respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. G.S.Rathore, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the order dated 13.6.2006 (Annexure A-12) whereby his services as Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) have been terminated. 2. The main grouse of the petitioner is that this order has been passed without issuing any notice to him. Therefore, the rules of natural justice have been violated. It is not disputed that the impugned order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner. Therefore, technically speaking the rules of natural justice were violated. 3. In every case of violation of rules of natural justice this Court cannot mechanically set-aside the order when 2 the facts clearly show that the appointment of the petitioner was made in a clandestine and fraudulent manner. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in Sonia Kayastha vs. State of H.P. and others, 1999(1) Shim. L.C. 162, laid down the following principle:- “The Courts of justice cannot, at any rate, lend their helping hand to such persons to earn and continue to enjoy a premium on mistakes of serious nature in violation of law, be it of their own or in complicity with others and brought about by clever and ingenuous manipulations. Public interest would be better served and miscarriage of justice with the assistance of Courts, too could be averted only by the Courts handling such situations with iron hand and not by allowing them to be carried away by misguided or misplaced sympathies. Such a person also in our view cannot be allowed to claim any relief in proceedings invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is meant to uphold the majesty of Courts and enforce the rule of law. At any rate, the extra ordinary jurisdiction should not be allowed to be used as a shield to cover up such patent violations of law with impunity.” 5. In the present case applications were invited for filling up the post Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Bouhar, Tehsil Chopal, Distt.Shimla. Two persons i.e. the petitioner Sunder Singh and Joginder Singh applied for the said post. The candidature of the petitioner 3 was rejected on the ground that he has a certificate of Prabhakar Matric in second division and English of Prep. standard and hence he is not eligible. The second candidate, Joginder Singh, had not produced the original certificate of 10+2. Therefore, the Selection Committee headed by the SDM and consisting of the BPEO, the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat and the Centre Head Teacher directed that the interviews be cancelled and BPEO Nerwa was directed to take further action for conducting interviews lateron. This order was obviously passed on 15.5.2006. This Court is not going into the question as to whether this order was right or wrong or whether the candidates were eligible or not. This order has never been challenged and it is apparent that the interviews were cancelled. 6. Thereafter, just two weeks later, without conducting any fresh interviews a letter dated 29.5.2006 was sent from the office of the Block Primary Education Office to the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bouhar directing him to appoint the petitioner as Primary Assistant Teacher in the school. Consequent to this direction the petitioner was permitted to join the school 1.6.2006. On 13.6.2006 the Block Primary Education Officer issued another letter canceling the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged this order by means of this writ petition. 4 7. In reply to the writ petition the State has pointed out and this is apparent from Annexure A-5 itself that interviews were cancelled. No fresh interviews were held. It was further pointed out that on 29.5.2006 the Block Primary Education Officer was on leave and some Assistant of his own accord issued the letter to the Gram Panchayat and action under law is being taken against the said Assistant. This case reveals a shocking state of affairs where after the interviews had been cancelled and without knowledge of the Chairman of the Committee i.e. the SDM or the BPEO one functionary of the office of BPEO sent a letter to the Gram Panchayat directing him to appoint the petitioner. Therefore, though the rules of natural justice may have been violated, in my view, the petitioner cannot be permitted to stay on as a Primary Assistant Teacher. The petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.3,000/-. 7th April, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.