a^ >v^l, 03 ^tivf^'-'s. S-sm^ *• i ;^ '^ ^ &^"</';;U d 'I..y >i Petitioner Resppndenti .<\/^c ^^y%/ ^w ^t./ <'^?y .:-4^ y <^ W.P.(S)No.^J-3-t4-2011 Gulabram Deshmukha, Aged 46 years, S/o Shri Vishalram Deshmukha, Head Master, Govt. Pre-Middle School attached with High School Dhooma, (Fhingeshwar) Dist-PAipur V.ersus ^ 1 .State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary School Education Department, Ministry, D.K.S., Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .>-"" 2. The Disfrict Education Officer, Raipur ^Jlaipur (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer, Block Education Office pnS^wOSasdel Block, Dist.- P.aipur (C.G.) ^L '77' •& £ i Ram Narayan Mishra ispondents State of Chhattisgarh and others ^?'?-' .£,! 1 ^ ResooBde.its State of Chhattisaarh ana' others .277- Gulabram Deshmukh ennnrt F^^S'^VS SSJ £;SS £. State of Chhattisaarh and others iO! Sohan lal Sen lesoondents Stafe of Chhattisaarh and others ET PETITION (S) N0.2778 of 2011 Petltjoner Johatram Verma Re; State of ChhaStisaarh and others : ^..'i^+'>^"' Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal aiong with Shri Viprasen Agrawal, counsei for the respective petitioner. Shri Y. S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General along with Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the SSate/respondents No.1, 3 and 4. (Passed on this 14'" of June,2011} This common order shal! govern disposal of W.P.(S)No.2772, 2773, 2774 ,2775 and 2776 of 2011 as issue involved in all these wriS petitions is 2. Sy this batch of petitions, the petitioners have assaiied correctness and validity of order dated 11-05-2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Distrid Education Officer, Raipur, by which, promotion of the petitioners through limifed departmental examination, 2010 have been canceiled ano' the petitioners reverted to the post, from which, they were promoted. -Jt. Learned counsei for the petitioners argued that the petitioners had participated in the process of selection through limited departmentat examination, pursuant to advertisement dated 18-02-2010 (Annexure P-3) and after seiection, they were promoted to the post of Head Master, Middle School vide order dated 23-08-2010 as modified vide order dated 27-08- 2010. However, Teachers challen thereafter, on several writ petitions filed by number of iging selection of process on various grounds, which of certain provisions contained in Chhattisgarh School Educatjon GazetSed Sen/ice (School Level Service) Recruitment and MIII' ,^^S^'K£Gs'^f^fT^=S~- ••. Promotion Ruies, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rutes of 2008"), Entry No.2 of Coiumn No.7 of Sr.No.3 of Schedule-1! ofthe Ruies of 2008 was quashed and the adv'ertisement issued for appointment {o the post of Head MasSer, Middle Schoo! was also quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though v'ide 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 oft'ne Court, the respondent authorities are now canceiing the promotion order of the petitioners also, which does not foilow as a consequence of She order dated 05-04-2011. Learned counsel further submitted that the petition was aliowed only to a limited extent and the order did not have the effect of canceling the whole process ofselection, but oniy in a iimited manner. He further submits that even though, advertisement was quashed, the could not be withdrawn on the basis of the order of petitioners promoti the Court without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the respectivc ipetitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the process of selection for appointment by way of promotion through iimited departmental examination initiated vide advertisement dated 18-02- 2010 was challenged on various counts in number ofwrit petitions, which were decided by a common order dated 05-04-2011. He further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court held that non-inclusion of HeadmasSer Primary Schoo! 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, a§ the same deprives eligible Headmasters of Primary ""?B'iBl>:' wsSss- 'WSSXS-s School from participating in the departmental limited examination. Learned State counsel further submitted that when the Court founa' that the entire ciass of Headmaster Primary School was illegaliy excluded from selection srocess for promotion to the post of Headmaster Middle Schooi, 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 teft for the State to continue <t the petitioners on the promoted post as the entire process of seiection has been deciared iileaa!. 5. The Dlvision Bench in its order dated 05-04-2011 passed in batch of vvrit petitions, examined challenge to the constitutionai vatidity and the condition ofconducting departmental examination, ascontained in Rules of 2008. !n each writ petition, different grounds chailenging valia'ity of the certain provisions contained in the Rules, and the process of selection was chailenged. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were also subjected to 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-inciusion of Headmaster, Primary ft- ^'whool having requisife qualification in Entry No.2 (a) and (b) of Column No.7 of Sr.No.3 ofSchedule-11 ofthe Ruies of 2008 is discriminatory, asthe same deprives eiigible Headmasters Primary School from participating in the departmental limit examination. Finaliy, the Division Bench ofthis Court quashed the Entry No.2 of Column No.7 of Sr.No.3 of Schedule-11 of the Rufes of 2008 and -consequently, the advertisement issued by respective District Education Officers of the concerned Educationaf Districts for the post of Head Master, Middte School have also been quashed. !t is therefore apparently clear that the Division Bench of this Court has quashed the advertisement, under which, the petitioners had apptied, subjected to the process of selection and have been appointed. There is no discretion left with the authorities except to cancel the appointment made pursuant to the advertlsement, which has been quashed by the Division Bench ofthis Court. !n these peculiar circumstances, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that they were entitled to opportunity of hearing h.as to be rejected aS th.e threshold. In exceptional cases iike the present one, where order of canceilation of promotion has been passed on the jround fhaS the process of selection has been quashed by the Court, could not be assailed on the ground that the petitioners were not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before canceling the order of promotion. It is a ,, case offoregone conclusion. ^ . • ') 7 In view ofthe aforesaid, ! do not find any merit in aforestated batch of v/rit petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed summarity at t'ne stage of motion itself without issuing notice to the respondents. No orders A co.py of this order be placed in the connected matter a!so. Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge TJM.aNE