Anjana Sharma vs State of HP

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the office order dated 7.9.2011 contained in Annexure P-10 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the present petitioner on the post of Language Teacher on contract basis in Govt. High School Dhanag, Tehsil Baijnath, Distt. Kangra, HP.

The petitioner having been graduated with Hindi as one of the elective subjects and also postgraduate in Hindi as well as qualified for Prabhakar examination and also undergone one year diploma in Language Teacher was called to appear in interview for the post of Language Teacher at old tehsil Palampur on 22.7.2011, pursuant to her name for the said post was sponsored by the concerned employment exchange. Consequently, she appeared in the interview on the scheduled date and place. She being found suitable was selected as a Language Teacher on contract basis and was given offer of appointment vide office order dated 3.9.2011, Annexure P-8. Her name figures at Serial No. 49 of Annexure P-8 and she was posted as Language Teacher in Govt. High School, Dhanag, the 4th respondent. She alongwith the requisite documents reported to the Headmaster Govt. High School, Dhanag on 8.9.2011 for joining duties. The joining report Annexure P-9 was submitted to respondent No. 4, however, he refused to accept the same on the pretext that he has been orally directed by the office of 3rd respondent not to accept her joining report. The petitioner was thus not allowed to join her duties by the 4th respondent in Govt. High School, Dhanag on 8.9.2011. Later on she received the office order dated 7.9.2011, Annexure P-10 whereby she alongwith three other selected candidates was ordered to be withdrawn in order to give parity to the appointments made under the pre-revised and re-revised Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is this order, which has been assailed before this court by filing the present writ petition being allegedly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. According to her, she is duly qualified for appointment as Language Teacher as per old as well as new Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Her appointment as such could have not been withdrawn. Also that she has been discriminated against the 52 similarly situated persons in the matter of cancellation of her appointment vide impugned order Annexure P-10.

The respondents when put to notice have contested the petition. Their stand in nut-shell is as under:-

That in reply to the contents of this para it is submitted that as per approval from the competent authority interview on contract basis for the post of language teacher on batch wise basis was conducted for the candidates possessing qualification under both R&P Rules old as well as new. Therefore, the merit of interview was prepared separately for new and old R&P Rules instead combined basis and accordingly appointment of both R&P Rules was made immediately. It is further submitted that when it was noticed that the candidates who possessed qualification under new R&P Rules, have been selected for appointment for general category of session 1986, whereas under old R&P Rules the candidates selected for appointment was of session 2004 to 2008 may create disparity due to different session, therefore, the candidates who possessed qualification under old R&P Rules, who were not in turn of parallel session of candidates, who possessed qualification under new amended R&P Rules, the appointment orders issued were withdrawn immediately on 07-09-2011 including petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the appointment orders of the petitioner were issued on 03-09-2011 and the same were further withdrawn vide office order dated -07-09-2011 i.e. Annexure P-10 alongwith other three candidates who were not in turn of session running for appointment under new R&P Rules in parallel. The respondent No. 4 i.e. Headmaster, Govt. High School, Dhanag, has not accepted the joining of petitioner as the appointment orders issued were already stands withdrawn by the competent authority.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder, reiterating her case as set out in the writ petition and denying the contentions to the contrary in reply being wrong.

It is in this backdrop, I have heard learned counsel on both sides and also gone through the record.

Undisputedly, the petitioner is qualified for being appointed as Language Teacher. It is for this reason her name was sponsored by the employment exchange for being considered to the post in question. The Selection Committee had selected the petitioner on the basis of her performance in the interview and her suitability to the post in question. As a result, thereof offer of appointment Annexure P-8 was made to her. When she reported for joining duties to the Headmaster, Govt. High School, Dhanag, the 4th respondent where she was ordered to be posted as Language Teacher vide office order dated 8.9.2011, Annexure P-8 supra, the said respondent did not allow her to join the duties and she was informed that he has been directed not to accept her joining report by the 3rd respondent. On that day, neither she nor the 4th respondent were aware of the reasons behind non-acceptance of her joining report qua which the petitioner came to know from the receipt of the office order Annexure P-10, received by her later on that in order to maintain parity in appointments, pursuant to old and revised Recruitment and Promotion Rules, her appointment alongwith three others selected candidates was ordered to be withdrawn.

The only apparent reason as disclosed from the perusal of reply to the writ petition is that the merit in respect of candidates, appeared in the interview for selection as Language Teacher under the new and old Recruitment and Promotion Rules inadvertently was drawn separately instead of on combined basis and as a result thereof under the new Rules the selected candidates belonging to general category were of 1986 session, whereas under the old Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 2004 to 2008 session. Such a situation had to result into disparity as the candidates qualified as per old Rules were not in parallel session to those who were qualified for being appointed under the new and amended Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It is for this reason the appointment of the petitioner and similarly situated persons seems to have been withdrawn.

Irrespective of the explanation as set-forth in reply to the writ petition, the fact remains that the offer of appointment made to the petitioner was unilaterally withdrawn without serving her with prior notice. The offer of appointment made to the petitioner vide Annexure P-8 had resulted in legitimate expectation that pursuant to it she will join duties in the school where posted and earn her livelihood. Such expectation, in my considered opinion, can not be allowed to be taken away that too without issuance of prior notice to her and thereby observing the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice. The impugned order Annexure P-10 being violative of principle of natural justice is thus not legally sustainable. While quashing and setting aside the same, this Court deem it proper to direct the respondents to issue a notice indicating the reasons qua cancellation of the offer of appointment made to her and to take a decision in the matter after considering her version thereto. Similar is the view of the matter taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7946 of 2011 titled Smt. Babli Devi vs. The Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 12.1.2012. As a matter of fact, the name of Smt. Babli Devi, the petitioner in that case also figures at Serial No. 2 of the impugned order Annexure P-10 hence, similarly situated to the petitioner. The view of the matter hereinabove taken by this court is thus fully supported by the judgment in Babli Devi''s case cited supra.

In view of the above discussion, this petition succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed and impugned order Annexure P-10 is quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondents to issue a notice to the petitioner indicating therein the reasons leading to cancellation of offer of appointment made to her vide office order Annexure P-8 within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by her before the 3rd respondent, calling upon her to place on record her version and thereafter to pass a speaking order on the receipt of the same within another two weeks, after affording her due opportunity of being heard. This shall be without prejudice to the liberty of the petitioner to approach this Court again against her surviving grievances, if any. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. So also the pending application(s), if any.