Mahendra Kumar Gupta vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order, Annexure P-1 dated 7.7.2011, whereby his services are terminated by Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Janpad Panchayat, Pichhor. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

The petitioner was appointed as Village Employment Assistant. The petitioner submitted his candidature for the said post by Annexure P-3. After selection, the order dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P-4) was issued appointing the petitioner on the said post on contract basis. The petitioner joined his services and undertaken the training organized by the department. Training Certificates are filed as Annexure P-6.

A complaint was made against the petitioner and consequent upon that the respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 25.6.2011 directing the petitioner to submit original mark sheet of sixth semester of BCA course. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner''s services are terminated without any show cause and without providing any opportunity of hearing.

Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the action on the ground that diploma in computer is not a minimum qualification prescribed for the post in question. The respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction to hear the dispute of appointment and this can be done only way of appeal by the appellate authority.

Per Contra, Smt. Patankar, learned Government Advocate, supported the action. Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi and Shri T.C. Narvariya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4, respectively, also supported the order passed by the authority below. Reliance is placed on Annexure R-3(1) dated 28.4.2011, whereby the petitioner was directed to produce the mark sheets. The petitioner''s letter dated 2.5.2011 (Annexure R-3(2)) is shown to submit that the petitioner was afforded with the opportunity. By relying on this document, it is stated that as per petitioner''s own stand, it is clear that he had deposited mark sheets of three semesters and had undertaken to deposit mark sheets of remaining three semesters after getting it from the University. It is argued that this itself shows that petitioner did not possess the qualification of BCA. The petitioner''s reply dated 23.6.11 and 4.7.11 are also shown wherein the petitioner has taken the same stand. By placing reliance on the final select list, Annexure R-3(4), it is demonstrated that the selection committee had awarded maximum 20 marks to the petitioner under the head of BCA whereas admittedly, the petitioner has not completed BCA. By placing reliance on Annexure R-3(6) it is stated that the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Shivpuri requested the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Pichhor to terminate the services of the petitioner. In turn, the impugned decision was taken which is in consonance with the terms of the contract.

No other point is pressed by the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The attack on the impugned order is of two fold. Firstly, it is stated that principle of natural justice is not followed and the petitioner has not been given proper opportunity. So far this aspect is concerned, it is clear that the petitioner has been given ample opportunities to produce the mark sheets of all the semesters. As per petitioner''s own saying in his representation, Annexure R-3(2), dated 23.6.2011 and 4.7.11, it is clear that the petitioner did not deposit the said certificates of BCA. On a specific query from the Bench, Shri Jitendra Sharma fairly admitted that on the date of submission of candidature and selection the petitioner had not completed his BCA course. However, Annexure R-3(4), on the strength of which appointment has been made, clearly shows that the petitioner has been granted 20 marks by treating him to be a BCA passed candidate.

If the petitioner''s candidature/application (Annexure R-4(1) is perused, it shows that the petitioner against the column "year of passing examination" has mentioned as 2009 against the entry "computer". Thus, the petitioner projected himself as a candidate having passed the BCA course. It is clearly a case of misrepresentation and furnishing incorrect information. I am unable to hold that the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity and principle of natural justice is not followed. After having taken a stand in the reply by the petitioner that he had not completed BCA course and did not submit all the mark sheets, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner was not entitled for 20 marks, which were given to him. The petitioner had secured 80 marks in total. The candidate just below him had secured 71.66 marks. If 20 marks are excluded, the petitioner will not be the most meritorious candidate at No. 1. Although Shri Jitendra Sharma submits that there was an irregularity in grant of marks in favour of Ramesh, the private respondent herein, however, in my opinion, this submission is without there being any pleading, foundation and relief in the writ petition. Accordingly, I am not inclined to enter into this aspect. However, if the respondent No. 2 is selected and appointed in lieu of petitioner, it will be open for him to raise the aforesaid question in appropriate proceedings.

So far the second contention about competence is concerned, in the appointment order of the petitioner dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P-4) it was made clear that even in future any irregularity is found in the documents submitted by the candidate, contract appointment can be terminated and legal action can be taken against the candidate (Clause 24). The appointment order is issued by CEO Janpad Panchayat, Pichhor and, therefore, the authority who had appointed him had the power to cancel the appointment as well in view of the terms of contract. The existing provision of appeal against appointment order will no preclude the appointing authority to cancel the contract of appointment under the terms of contract. In the light of aforesaid analysis, I am not inclined to exercise the equity and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. Petition, for the reasons stated above, is devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed.