<, f^ -L-^m, • U'3'EE BXGH COUBT OP JUEIGASJBB A2 J4BSLPUB (M.P.) PE13EOREB BESPOroEH'I.g w•P. Ho.-^S'^'f /2000 4rif Hussain Siddiqui, aged aboat 26 years, s/o Shri A.E. Siddiqai, R/o Masjid para Dharam jaigarh Di striet Baigarh (M.P.) V EB SU 8 1. State ofM.P. -throagh Secretary, Departaent of Panchayat and Raral Bevalopment Govt. af M.P. Vallabh Bhavaa Bbopal. i. Seeretary, Depar-tment o£ Losal Sel: Sovt. of M.P. •V'allabh Bhavan Bhopal. -s f~3. Dtreetor, Srban Atoim.stratlon Madhya Pradesb BIiopal. I. Chieif Municipal Officer, Hagar Panshayat Ifaaram3ai garh Oistriot Baigarh (M.P.) 5. 211a Panehayat through Oiief Ex9^utive Offieer Baigarh (H.P.) Collector, Kaigarh (a.P.) GeBmissioner, Bllaspur Divi.sion, Bilaspur (E.P.) \- . Cblef Exeeutive OSficas, Zila Panchaya-f; Baigarh (M.P.) 9. Sa-bya Chalan Sarfcar, aged'about 2€ years^PraBbandha Sartor B/o lAiaramjai-^garh Golony Post Offiee Shabpar. 10. Bi.strict Project Director B.6.P.S.M. Baigarb (M.P.) 11. Bloek Edacatioa Offieer ~' Dharaa jaigarh Distt. Saigarte CM.I L ».lui>;1»iS "-A ..-^ B' B //2// -12. Prlnclpal, Baslc TraiBing Institute Dharamjai garb. ,13. Bistrte-b Sdueation Offlcer i5)WaA^Saigarh (M.p.) ^3t-lv(, EE'H'EON mpBE SBT.226. 227 of CSWSI'I'aj'etON DFIgmA 1. 2. 3. (i) . (11) (iii) Partl.culars of the Patitioner : .As above Partiealars of the BespGndeDt_s s As above PartieulaFs of the o_rder aeaiast ishtoh the Petition is maSs '• Order No. Sated Passed by ^)peal Case Ho.^/89 ^15/99-2000 and oraer No. - /99-2000 D^r^njaigarh /pi ^ \ J ^p-.e^ •" : (Ji'- ^-t 1 14.2.3000 and 13.3.2000 ' GOmmlssloD^Bilaspusr Sivision Bilaspur (M.P.t and Gblef . _^ Mnnieipal Offieer Hagar Pancb.aya'tl Dharam^ai- garh Distrlct Eaigarh [ (M.P.$- - • ' (IV) Sut>.1eet in brief s \^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wrlt Petdtion No.2561/2000 Arif Hussain Siddiqui Vs. State of M.P. 85 Ors. ORDER Pei^Hon.J^i.khryddin.J ; By fhis pctitun iiader Articte 226 of the Constitution of Indja, the pctitioner chaBenges fhe order passcd by fhc xespondent No.7 - Comxaissioner, BUaspur Division, Bilaspur dated 14-02-2000 (Atinexure P-6) and fhat of CIiief Muiucipal OfBcer - respondent No.4, Nagar Panchayat, Dharamja^arh, Dist. Raj^arh (Aiuiexure P/7). Briefly stated fhe facts are fbat fhe petitk>ner was appoiated on 18.3.1999 as per Aiinexure P/3 on the post of Shiksha Karmi, Grade-III, Purva Madhyamfl': Sha]a, Bazaarpara, Dharaxnjaigarh. He joiaed the said post immediatety thereafter aad was serving. ./ It is subiaitted that one Satyacharan Sarkar, respondent No.9 flled an appeal uader Section 91 af Panchayat Raj Adluniyain before the Coiiuxussioaer, Bilaspur against the order dt. 25.8.1999 (Anacxure P/5) passed by the Chief Executive OflScer, Dtetrict Panchayat Raqiarh- respondeat No.5. By fhis order Annexure P/5, an order was passed whereby the appointment of respondent No.9 was canceBed on the ground that Chief Municipal OfBcer, Dharamjaigarh had no jurisdiction. Respondent No.9 impleaded State of Madhya fradesh fhrough CoBector aad Nagar Panchayat, Dharamja^rh fhiough Chief Municipal Officer as icspondcnts. Thc Comaussioncr noted fhat Satyacharaa Sarlsar vfas at Scrial No.4 ia thc selcction Ust and hc was scrving ia Durgapiir Colony. It was further noted that oa 25.8.99 when fhe order was passed regarding canceBation, the peraoa •wtio was junior in the order, his postmg ought to have been considered. It was meutioned fhat Satyacharaa Sarkar ought to have been posted in Dui^apiir and tfae said post ought to have been transferred. Thc relevant portion of fbe order of the CoiumissioneT is reproduccd:- (3) y^T 3pft?r ^- PTS3TT x^ -g^ ^T^ qn^|7]^ ^TJV XfSffv^^ "c-|^^4|'|0 ^ •SmV W<T f^TT TT4T 1 SpfRn'aff -^ f^gFr g^rtrpsra? ^ cT^f -^ s.fcfur ^n- Trar i ^ ^ •^ei T^ ^i- ^m dTiff ^f -3 ^ ^t-d ^FK 4^w?, y<^uiij'iri ^m 3TRm ^H ^t ^irc q?t -Tsft sft, ^ra^ SP^TTS.ff cf5T qTFf c|^A|,-n ^TTTf ^N ^R ^ SJT 1 STtftcTNf ST. ?TT?fT ^TTy cM^'141 ^ R'^fcM ?Td^ ^ ?p7 ^?T t | f^ncp 25-8-99 cp 3,TR?r gTCT ft^Tr ^RW ^t ^pft t | ^31 'tiiWl^ S'^Wftl f^ffflT ^raraTT ?pt ^T? fTR^rr arr f^- f^Rrr cf?4f ^rf-s cp q^ IR ^^wj ^ H ^m rff -cp iTR ^ www ^f ?rr^ f$Rn ^ chi^d t i ^ft ftcT^- TT spftcna^r cp Pl^fcl-d f^t^FcT cfT?^ ^ 1TnsT-';!TTST '^TrTT ^ft c^ gf^W? ^FTq' c^ ^f^n' ?TR:|' ^RTT cR'iff c^ Pl^fdxl f^?W d?^' |i? 3pft?rr&ff qft Pl^fckl ^'l^q^lild ^ H q?T.Ti arr i g^r tni44i<?f^ STI^WT^ fSroTr 4'Eiiiid cRt ?]^ TTFT.TT sn' f^7 gr. ?TT. ^Trg? cprai^ft ^ teTT q?tff ?:rf-3 cR' TC 'f^RT t, fSm tR spfrOTaff wl^'icl aTT , dc;^|^ ysi ^FP? 4lf?<cM SflSrcpTft s.|4^-y'l(» ^RT ^ TTzft f^gf^T ^t ^RTTC ^rT?T?T ^^^'\vS> W! ^STRtcff^T ^5W §?fSrgf^tT ^ 'gfe ?I7r ^STR ^^ i? STT??T W^rf (4) ys2T ?FR tn1^ra?T aTiSrcpr^, ;?PK 1Tc)WcT, £l4u1iJ4ltf gTTr g^cT ^xT? ?Pl' Sfqciicn^l ^?qT | SpftcTP-ff cp f^R srfSmwp ^ ?Tcpf ^ ^TTT ^' Tp^ f^zn- i 3Pft?T ^cRK ^ "TTcft f | ^|^^i4lRlc(7] q- g®]-chl^ld^ 3Tf§rc;y^1' ^t ZT? f^JiTtT f^rr ufrar 11^ 'ETzrf^m' oyR-aii''] ^ ^ ^r^ q?Tf •^E{^\ ^r^ t ^ ^TT ^ yrqy ^ q- ?rr ift czrf^r f^- -gfeq?r ^sr I^IT 4siraa ^ ^er f^rr t ^if[ ^ vs\ ^ 1 The contention of aespondent No.4 is fbat his postu^ order (Annexure P/7) was passed ia coinpliaace of fhe order by the Conunissioner, Bil^pur Dwisioa, Bflaspur and tenniiiated the semces ofthe petitioner. The petitioncr submitted a repTescntation praying for quashmg of Aunexure P/7. Aimexure P/9 is fhe appointment ordcr of respondent No.9 which shows that hc was appointed on 15.7.98 and was posted at Prathamika Shala, Duisapur as Shiksha Karmi. Thc petitioner also filed a document as Annexure P/10 to show fhat Ramcstawar Singh Choubaa who is at Sl.No.6, has been transferred to Abhy^ Shala, Dhaiainjai^rh fiom Pratfaaiaika Shala, DhaTamja^arh and fhciieafter vidc Annexure P/11 Shri Ramcshwar Singh Choiihan's posting was caaceUed and as such, the post of Rameshwar Siagh Choiihaa is vacanfc The petiti.oner's subiuissioa is tfaat Aanexure P/12 passed by respondent No.4 intimating fhe Comxnissioner, Bflaspur that since Ramcshwar Singh Chouhaa's postmg has becn caaceUed, fherefore fhe Shiksha Kanm caa be adjusted. The petitioner further submits that in any casc since fhe post of R.S.Chouhan is Jymg vacaat as has been recoimneaded by the Chief Municipal OfiBcer, ffagar Panchayat, Dharaayaigarh, the petitioner caa be adjusted and the termination order of semces of fhc pctitioncr, under thcsc circumstances, is not sustauaablc. The petitioncr's gnevance is fhat the appeal whicli was pBefemed •under Sectioa 91 was not maintainable under Panchayati Raj Adhiruyam thougfa the order was passed by fhc Zila Panchayat. But it was ia coxnpliance of Collcctor's order dt. 28.7.99. The other gaevaucc of fhe petitkincr is tfaat fhe petitioner was not joined as party xior he was heard by flic Goiamissioner. It is submitted that l^f-icL any case he was not heard wfaen the order termiaatiBg his serviees (Auaexure P/7) was passed. It is subiaitted fhat the order was issued. He had joined aad was worldng on the post and &r any reason, if temuaation is reqiiired, he oi^ht to have beea hcard. The sajd order has been passed in violatkm ofpxinciples ofnaturaljustfce. ReUaace has been placed on Ckie decision of Supreme Coiirt reported in 1992 (6) S.L.R. page 718, ;8teum» Kwmmr_Jfea aad ofehCTs Va. Btate of BU»ar and Shrawaa Kuiaar Jten & athew V«. RaaaevahLStouma and otlters, it was held that: 'by an order the Deputy Dcvelopinent Coiiunissioner canccBed fhe appoiatmeats of fhe appeBaats. Mr. Ashok H. Desai, leamed Solicitor Geueral appearu^; for the respondent has contended fhat the appointments have bcen caaceMed because the Distnct Superintendent of Education had no authorily to make the appointmeats, it was a devise of by-passing the rescrvatioas and fhat fhe conditions which are part of the appoiatment ordcr were aot complied with. Mr. U.R.Lalit and Mr.A.K.Ganguli, teanaed Semor Advocates, appcarmg for fhe appellants havc controverted fhcse aUegatuns aad havc dated that aU these teachers were variedty appouited and they had joincd fheir respective schools. It is not necessaiy to go into aB fhese questions. In fhe facts and ciKnunstances of fhis case, we are of fhe view tfaat fhe appeBauts should Iiave beea given au opportunity of hearing before caaceUing their appoiatments. Admittedly, no such opportuaity was afforded to them, It is weB sctfled tfaat no order to the dcta-iinent of the appeBants couM be without complyiug with the Riiles of natural justice. We set aside the iinpugaed ordcr Fof caacellation dt.3.11. 1988 on thisshort ground. As suggested by fhe leamed Solicitor General, wc direct fhat the Secretary (Education), Govenunent of Bihar, or to other person noininated by him should give an opportuaily ofhearing to fhc appeUaats and thereafter give a findiag as to whefher fhe appeBants were validly appoiated as Assistaat Teachers. He shaU also determiae as to whether aay of the teachers joined their respective schools and for how inuch duration. In case soiae of fhcm joined fheir schools and worked, fhey shaU bc cntiffcd to their salaiy for such pcriod." Further submission of fhe leamed counsel for the petitioner is fhat it was tbe postmg of respondent No.9 that aU the teoubles started regarding the posting ordcr of the respondcnt No.9 whfch was canceUed by thc CoUector. It is subraitted tfaat so far as respondent No.9's order is concemcd, it could not have been caaceUed even without hearing him aud it was without jurisdiction. It is fiufher subinitted that ia any case undcr the guise of thc posting wbat has becn done is fhat appointinent itsclfwas caaccllcd. Couasel for the petitioner furfher submitted that ia paragraph 5 of the retum fited by respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7, it is bome out that the question was regarding fhe posting in Urban area aad fhe Rural area and aot that of canceUation of any post Par^raph 5 of retum of respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 6 &7 is reproduced for perusal. 'On rcceipt of complaint CoBector, Raigarh found that one reserved post of Sankul Shaikshik Samanyak, heremafter referred to as C.A.C. for Dharanyaigarh urban area, under the Rajcev Gandtu Shiksha Mission. According to Rajeev Gaadhi Shiksha Scheme the Shiksha Karaai shoidd have been appointed withia thc urbaa area where school is situated. Against fhis post one Chanchal Vishwas, Teachcr of Dui^apur Colony Dharamjajgarh was posted and Respondent No.9 Shri Salyachatan Sarkar has been posted iu the place of Shri Chanchal Vishwas at Diu^apur Colony. Accordiag to Respondent No.9 Salyacharaa Sarkar cannot be posted at Diu^apur. Therefore, Collcctor Raigarh vide its order dated 25.8.99 cancclled fhe posting of Respondent No.9 (Anaexure P.5). ^gainst this order (Annexure P.5) fhe Respoudent No.9 Salyacharan Sarkar preferred an appcal before the Commissioncr Bitopur which was registered as Appcal No.2 of 59- /1599-2000.* The retura of respondent No.4 has been read aud paBagraph 3 shows fhat what is bome out is that now tbe position is fhat after issuaace of caaceUation order of appointment of the pettdoner, fhe present status of the various schools aad absorption of fhe pctitioner was caDed and vide report dt. 4.4.2000 (Anncxxuc P/12) the respondents have already submitted fhe status to the Coinmlssioner, Bilaspur and it is mtimated fhat one Shri Rameshwar Smgh Chouhmi has already been appointed as C.S.E. Dharamjaigarh, Urbaa area by Block Mucation Officer and if he is relieved, one Shik&ha Karmi Grade-III can be "absorbed and the Commissioner, Bil^pur was informcd that since Shri 8 Chouhan has been relieved, a person belongiag to Class-III can bc adjusted and accoininodated. Armexnre P/ 14 has been filed aloiigwith appUcation which bas already taken on record dt. 27.7.2000 and now the position is fhat the pctitioner caa be adjusted as the post has been faflen vacaat As such, ia view offhe developnaent, which has taken place, fhe reinoval of semees is not suslamable. Counsel for fhe parties, therefore, submitted that fhe situation which was prevatent is chaaged subsequenfty aud without in fect disturbing respoadent No.9, the reliefcan bc gianted to pctitioncr. Thc qucstioa reinaiDS reganlmg (hc rcinovaL So far as the reaioval part is concemed, the semces havc been tennaiated arbitrarily aad wifhout hearm^ fhe petitioner. The petitioner was required to be heard sincc he was semrig aad joiaed aad in vfew of fhe dccisions passed ia Shrawaa Kiunar Jha aad ofhers Vs. State of Bihar aad Shrawan Kuniar Jha & ofhers Vs. Ramsevak Shanna aad others, ao order to the detriment of thc pctitioner could have been passed without coiuplying with fhe Rulcs of natttral justice. The present situation in fhe case is that so far respondent No.9 is conceraed, he was also renioved without hearing by CoUector, Ra^arh. His order of reinoval was set aside subsequentty by fhe AppeUate order of the Commtesioner. By Annexure P/7, fhe service of the petitioner was tenninated and they have done without heariag of the petidoiier, E such, the order of temunatmg the services offhc petitioiier is set aside. Siace the post is already now inade available, as stated by respondcnt No.4 aad which was furthcr foiind on thc be^js offhc retum filed by respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7, thc ordcr of termination AEmexure P/7 is notsustainable and hereby set aside. He be reinslated. ^. Counsel for fhe petitioiifir subuiits fhat so far as back ws^es of fhc petitioner are concemcd, the petitioncr may be aflowed to inake a representation. The petitioner m%?, if so advised, inake a representation and the saaae sball be considerad on its own merits ia acconlance with / law. ' In view offhe aforesaid diseussions, the petitfoa succeeds and it is accordiugty allowcd as indicated hcreiaabovc. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge 1 y ^