Ramaiya Ekka vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure PÂ1) by which services of the

petitioners have been terminated by respondent No.4.

Mr.Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners' services have been terminated on the ground that they

failed to file the documents showing that they have passed Higher Secondary Examination, whereas they have passed Higher Secondary Examination

and certificates were also produced, but without affording an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed.

On the other hand, Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6/State, would support the impugned

order.

None present for respondents No.3 and 4 though served.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

The petitioners were earlier working on the post of Guruji. In order to appoint them on the post of Shiksha Karmi GradeÂIII, they were required to

file certificates showing that they have passed Higher Secondary Examination. It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed certificates showing

that they have passed Higher Secondary Examination, but respondentÂJanpad Panchayat, Batouli has taken exÂparte decision and their services

have been terminated though no showÂcause notice was served to them. If respondentÂJanpad Panchayat, Batouli was not satisfied with certificates

filed by the petitioners, they could have given notice and in that event, they could have satisfied the officers that they have valid Higher Secondary

Examination passed certificates and therefore, they are eligible to be appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi GradeÂIII, as such, for want of

opportunity of hearing, they have suffered prejudice.

True it is that the petitioners were asked to submit their Higher Secondary passed certificates in order to appoint on the post of Shiksha Karmi

GradeÂIII, which according to them, they have filed but it appears from the impugned order that nothing has been considered and holding that they

have not passed Higher Secondary Examination and they could not produce necessary certificates, their services have been terminated, whereas if the

authorities were not satisfied, they could have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners asking finally to produce certificates and if the

petitioners fail to submit, their services could have been terminated, but that course has not been followed and without giving an opportunity of hearing,

their services have been terminated, which is in teeth of the principle of natural justice.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure PÂ1) passed by respondent No.4 is setÂaside. The matter is remitted to respondent

No.4 who after serving notices to the petitioners and after hearing them will pass a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to file additional documents in reply to showÂ​cause.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).