VE i?in !!ll!:ii'!'i i;ii41t'» !]!lii"3'; HIGHCOURTOFGNHATTISGARH.BIl.ASPUR (DIVISIONBENGHi CORAM: HON'Bl.ESURI.lASDISH BHAI.LA, AGTINS C-).& HON'BI-ESHRI DII.IP RAOSm-IEB DKHMUKH, J. WritAoDealN6.115of2007 WRITAPPEALUN RSEeTlON2sO(?CWHATTIS<3ARHHIGHCOURT (APREftl-TOa3ffil6ti@N?BENCHt»CT,200e APPEL1.MMT ; ..K. Umashankar Rao, S/o K. RiSPONDENT ^ about 40 years» N04 tesistent Teacher, Prayas-Andhra Pathshala, Camp No.1, Bhilai Nagar, ^ DistrictDurg.(C.Gj ,-Versus-'. :,...:: . .'' :,1 : : ', :' ~:/ '' RESI^NI^NTS : 1. PrEwas-Ahdhra^athsttala IGQmmittee, ,RESPON@E^' •^•'.^•:;:.,;x'tlw^^it^^liajrT^^ N0.1 Qart^.Nio;1,BI'iiilai^®i^bFt<A;@urg. RESPONDENT : 2. Secrefary, F^svas-^dhfrajliatft^'iata, 1<@;2? 'i BhiIaihagarCamp.No.'),Bli)1ai{Dulg), RESB3N0ENT : 3. Oeputy pirector Education (Sehool), N0.3o Dura(G,G.y :-: ' .• '\ ,.:' ',:';;.,.:11 RESPONDENT : 4. J. Mohanrao. Sfo J. Sardhe; Asstt. N0.5 Teacher,. F'ravas-Andhra Pathshala, eamp.No.'t,Bhilai,District@urg; Petitioner No.1 : 5. A.Satyarao, aged about45years, S/p A. Satyanarayan, working as Asstt. ' Teacher.Camp No.IL BhilaiNagar, DistrictDyrg,GhhattisgarfT;^^ Petltioner No.2 : 6. A.K.Laxminarayan, S/o Stlfya Pratcash Rao,^^af3^t37r¥ears;wot1<inga& testt. Teai^er m tl^ High S Pravas-ftndhra F>attishala,Gamp No.1, BMitar^ N (Ohhattisgarti) - Present:- :: ,': . 'v '" '•:.-,: ;' y.' •'":,'.:'' . ; ~1.'.. ShriSanJayK.^grEwvaliCounselfoFthe^etjtioper; SBriB:R.©hosh,Cc>unselToFTespoB98nls^N&'!X2. ShnA.S.KaGhha'(^a>G.A.^^he;S1ate^RQndentN(>.3 SHnFS.Khar^C^unserf6rrespenclsn8No.5&%;^^ ffll lllll^^^iss <Ll 1.J u •^T, Its • :-3fe ...^ iiaa fas^as yiSBI ••^'s^ ORAl.ORDER (Passedpn 19.06.2007} The following oral order of the Court was passed by Jagdish Bhalla, ActingC.J. this appeal arises out of Judgment dated 25th April 2007 passed tsy leamed Single Judge in W.P.No.4127 of 1 992. The respondents No.S & 6/writ petitioners chaltenged the appointmentdated 4.11.19920f the appeltant on the post of Assistant Teacher. Notices were issued to the appellant by the Hon'bte Single Judge. hkwvever, the appellant chose not to contest before the| Hon'ble Single Jludge. Therefore, after hearing the counsel for the peUtionere and otherrespondents.thewritpetitionwasallowed. Aggrieved by thesame, th6appellan espondent No.4filed|this writ appeaf biefore tte Division Bench of this.eourt. It has been avierred;on befratfoNhe?aRpettantthattheimRugnetforderofH@B is aney i|^^ioMer^%^^;a|s^ appellant vffio ^etto^ ri^itei^Rtest^^ it^cannot be cailed as an ex pafte ju<^ment^wh^ ffi^;fliStter was ctecjded after due servicetolheappellarit.WefindthattheorderpassedbyHon'bleSingte Judge is well reasoned order and point in issue was defeided in accordance with law. We heard the matter. It vras brought to our notice that the appellant's father was a member of the Setection Committee. Since the appellant was one of the candidates to the appointment of the Assistant Teacher, in ttiie normal eouree, tiis father should have disassociated himself from the selection committee. UbWever, the father pfthe appellant continued as msmber of the selection committee who interviewed and recommended selection of the appellant. In such cireumstance,"th® appointmentoftheappellanton the basis ofthe recommendation, wherein hjs father was a member, isin viplatiorT ofpnrieiples of natufal justice. The maxim that "justice should not only be done but shouid be appeared tffi SSSSSBS :Kt Have been done" has been violated for the reason thatat no stretch of imagination in routine it woukl be apprehended that th®father who is a member of the selection committee and Uie son was appointed in the process. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge with regard to the compliance of Rule 8 of M.P. Ashaskiya Shilcshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon ke Bharti) Niyam, 1979 Oiereinafter referred to as the Ryles'). Rule 8 ofthe Rules is as under: "8. (1) Where an Institution desires to fill up any vacancy of a post ofa teacher or other employees, it shall make a referenceto that effectto the Education Officer. the Divisional Superintendent of Education or Uie Ayog as tiie case may be.alongwith a requisition in Form III. (2) On receipt ofa referenceunder sub-rule (1), the Education Officer, the Divjsional SutferinteHclent of education cif the Ayc^, as the ease may tis, shall (umish information to ffie Institution cOngemed jn R»rm IV and such information shall relate. - (a) Person having more length of continuous seryice jn educational institution shall be given priority over the person having lesser service at his credit; (b) Person vrfio was pennanent in service shall have priority over a person who was temporary in service; or (c) Personwhoseserviceswereterminated earlier shall have priority over a person whose services were terminated later. (3) Ifnosuifableandotherwisequalifiedteacher or other emptoyee is avaHable, the Education Officer, the ^ ?i&1;y^^S^^&'?!^i'^^^i..i,.^^ Er: Divisional Superintendent of Education or Ayog, as the case may be shali fumish a non-availability certiflcate to the Institution concerned." The writ petitioners were already working as teacheps in the aided institutioni.e. respondent No.1 before the setection and appointment of the appellant in the said akied Jnstitution and according to Rule 8 of the Rufescertain rights have been developed in favourofthewrit petitioners. No doubt the appeilant has worked as Teacher for almost 15 yeare but the fact that his father was a memberof the selection committee who selected the appellantand the rule 8of the Rules aiso cannot be ignored, no interference is warranted in this appeal and we fanher find that no ittegaiity has been committed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the appealisdismissed. \Sd/- Ag.ChiefJustice Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge /-m=°s= \-