^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BH.ASPUR Writ Petition No. 301 of 2006 PETITIONER 'V RESPONDENTS Ku. Noorjahan, D/oShri Md. Mustaq, aged 28 ye'ars, K/o Near Sharda Bhawan, Faiz Nagar, Talapara, Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Urban Administo-ation Department Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Urban Administration Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector, Bilaspur (CG). 4. Nagar Panchayat, Gorela Through Chief Municipal Officer, Gorela, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 5. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Gorela, DistrictBilaspur(CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Present : Shri Indrasen Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General with Shri U.N.S. Deo. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Prakash Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 & 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05"' ofMarch, 2008) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the validity of the order dated 12.01.2006 (Annexure P/5), whereby, appointment ofthe petitioner on the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II in Nagar Panchayat, Gorella was cancelled on account of the facts that on scmtiny it was found that the process for selection was not done in accordance with mles. Further, order dated 03.01.2006 (Annexure R 1/7), issued by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur, was also sought to be quashed. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.05.06' (Annexure P/l), the petitioner made an application for appointment on the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II. The petitioner was selected and was posted at Govemment Middle School, Gorella vide order dated 17.06.05 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner, accordingly, joined as Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II in Govemment Middle School, Gorella on 30.06.05 (Annexure P/4). 3. The Collector, Bilaspur, on the basis of complaint made by one Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni and on the basis of enquiry report submitted by fhe Tahsildar, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, came to the conclusion that the recmitment process for the post of appointment on the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II and Grade III was not followed in accordance with law and despite, their being stay of the recruitment process, the interview was conducted. Accordingly, the Collector, Bilaspur, by order dated 03.01.06 (Annexure R 1/7) in Revenue Case No. 23/2005-06 cancelled the selection process and directed the ChiefMunicipal OfGcer, Gorella, to conduct fresh selection process for appointment on the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II, in accordance with law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.01.06 (Annexure P/5) was passed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition, seeking a direction to quash the impugned order dated 12.01.06 (Annexure P/5) and order dated 03.01.06 issued by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur. 5. Shri Indrasen Sahu, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that once the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II through proper selection process, selection process may not be quashed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 12.01.06 was issued on the basis ofreport submitted by the Tahsildar conducted at the back of the petitioner. The respondent authorities have not applied their mind before passing the impugned order. 6. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that on the basis of complaint filed by one Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni, the additional Collector, Pendra Road, directed the respondent No. 4 on 08.06.05 (Annexure R 1/2) to conduct the recruitment process, in accordance with law, as there was a complaint made by one Shri Dwarka Prasad Soni and Shri Murari Lal Agrawal on 24.06.05. Three members committee was appointed to go into the recruitment process ofUrdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II and Grade III as there were several complaints. On 18.07.05 (Annexure R 1/4), 13 Special Secretary, Urban Administration Development Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, wrote a letter to all the Commissioners and Chief Municipal Officers, to stay the process of recruitment on the post of Urdu Shiksha Kanni immediately. 7. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Leamed Deputy Advocate General, would further submit that admittedly no opportunity ofhearing to fhe petitioner was given as this is the basic requirement when punitive order is passed against the employee. However, the entire process of selection was vitiated, therefore, the select list and appointment thereofwas cancelled without any notice. 8. It was found that contrary to the order dated 18.07.05 ofthe respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 4 and 5 proceeded with the process of recruitment and appomted fhe petitioner on the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II. In the selection committee, in place of the Block Education Officer, the Assistant Project OfBcer was kept. A report of the Tahsildar (Annexure R 1/5) was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, in tum, he sent report to the Collector, Bilaspur (CG) on 05.12.05 (Annexure R 1/6) observing that the respondent No. 4 and 5 have not followed the process of recruitment in accordance with law and despite stay of the recmitment process, proceeded with the interview and appointed the petitioner on the post ofUrdu Shiksha Karmi Grade II. 9. The respondent No. 4 and 5 have chosen not to file any retum and make any submission during the course ofhearing. 10.Be that as it may, in the present case, admittedly the petitioner was given appointment. She worked for more than six months, thus, she is entitled to opportunity of hearing which is the touchstone of the basic principle of natural justice and fair play in acfion. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shrawan Kumar Jha & others Vs. State of Bihar & others , wherein the appointment ofteachers were cancelled without giving them an opportunity ofhearing, observed as under: <I^aeiat>*""%. "It is not necessary to go into all these questions. In the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that the appellant should have been given an opportunity of hearing before canceling their appointments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the appellant could be passed without complying with the rules ofnaturaljustice." 12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case ofD.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. & others , considering the concept ofopportunity ofhearing observed as under: "The cardinal point that has to be bom in mind, in every case, is whether the person concemed should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. In other words application of the principles of the natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concemed person. It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules ofnaturaljustice. Therefore, fair play in action request that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise of the power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be inconformity with the principles ofnaturaljustice." 13.The said principle is reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University & others , wherein it is held that: "The law is settled that non arbitrariness is essential facet ofArticle 14 forwarding the entire realm ofState action govemed by Article 14. It has come to be established, as a further corollary, that the audi alteram partem facet of natural justice is also a requirement of Article 14, for; natural justice is the antithesis of arbitrariness. In the sphere of public employment, it is well settled that any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fair, just and reasonable which are components of fair treatment. The conferment of absolute power to terminate the services of an employee is antithesis to fair, just and reasonable treatment." WSSg!»» g wsig. E •^' ^ ^ 14.Further, in the matter ofCanara Bank & others Vs. Debasis Das & others and Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so asto enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice ofthe case before any adverse order is passed against him. It is after all an approved rule of fair play and one of the most important principles of naturaljustice." 15.Applymg well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has been condemned unheard by issuing the impugned orders. The actions ofthe respondent authorities are contrary to well established principles ofnatural justice and fair play in action. 16.In view ofthe foregoing, the impugned order dated 12.01.06 (Annexure P/5) and 03.01.06 (Annexure R 1/7) are quashed. The petition is allowed. However, the State authorities may take appropriate action, if so advised, after following due process of law, affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge 1. AIR 1991 SC 310. 2. 1993 (3) SCC 259. 3. AIR 1998 SC 3261. 4. 2003 (4) SCC 557. 5. 2005 (6) SCC 321. Sahu