Rita Swamit and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Alok Aradhe, J.—In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned orders by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated from the post of Contract Teacher Grade III. For the facility of reference, the facts from writ petition No. 6467/08 (s) are being referred to.

Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that on 11.9.2007, an advertisement was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Paraswara, inviting applications for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II and Grade III. The petitioners submitted their applications in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. The applications submitted by the petitioners as well as other candidates were scrutinized between 2.11.2007 to 5.11.2007. Thereafter, a provisional list was prepared on 5.12.2007. Thereafter, objections were invited in respect of the provisional select list, by the respondents. A Committee was constituted for disposal of the objections on 29.1.2008 and after disposal of the objections on 30.1.2008, final select list was prepared.

After publication of the final select list, advertisement was issued in the daily newspaper namely ''Swatantra Mat, Dainik, Jabalpur Express and Nav Bharat'' on 9.4.2008 by which candidates were informed to appear in the first, second and third round of counselling, respectively on 11.4.2008, 15.4.2008 and 17.4.2008. The petitioners appeared in the counselling and were appointed vide order dated 11.4.2008 against the sanctioned post of Contract Teacher. It is the case of the petitioners that their appointment was made strictly in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005. However, all of a sudden by the impugned orders dated 14.5.2008 and 19.5.2008, the appointment of the petitioners to the posts in question were cancelled. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and the orders of appointment of the petitioners have been cancelled unilaterally. It is submitted that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Hirendra Pal Singh etc., (2011) 5 SCC 305 : (2011) 2 SCC(L&S) 73 and decision of this Court in the case of Radha Mohan Goswami and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2004) 101 FLR 312 : (2004) 3 LLJ 794 : (2004) 2 MPHT 49 : (2004) 1 MPJR 451 : (2004) 2 MPLJ 326 .

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has submitted that certain complaints were received with regard to irregularities in holding of the counseling. In order to enquire into the complaint, the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, conducted an enquiry in which it was found that the dates of the counseling was not properly advertised, as a result of which, several candidates who had secured more marks than the petitioners could not participate in the process of counseling. On the basis of the said report, the order cancelling the orders of appointments of the petitioners have been issued. It is further submitted that in the facts of the case, the principles of natural justice have no application. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Government Advocate has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Others, AIR 1981 SC 136 : (1980) 4 SCC 379 : (1981) 1 SCR 746 , Canara Bank and Others Vs. Shri Debasis Das and Others, AIR 2003 SC 2041 : (2003) 3 JT 183 : (2003) 2 LLJ 531 : (2003) 3 SCALE 220 : (2003) 4 SCC 557 : (2003) SCC(L&S) 507 : (2003) 2 SCR 968 : (2003) 2 SLJ 345 : (2003) 2 UJ 1129 : (2003) AIRSCW 1561 : (2003) 2 Supreme 793 , Aligarh Muslim University and Others Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 : (2001) 91 FLR 28 : (2000) 9 JT 502 : (2000) 6 SCALE 125 : (2000) 7 SCC 529 : (2000) SCC(L&S) 965 : (2000) 2 SCR 684 Supp : (2000) AIRSCW 2976 : (2000) 6 Supreme 1 and Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy, AIR 2005 SC 2090 : (2005) 4 CompLJ 249 : (2005) 2 ESC 225 : (2005) 105 FLR 630 : (2005) 4 JT 40 : (2005) 2 LLJ 461 : (2005) 6 SCC 321 : (2005) SCC(L&S) 833 : (2005) 61 SCL 144 : (2005) 3 SCR 81 : (2005) 2 SLJ 463 : (2005) AIRSCW 2005 : (2005) 3 Supreme 492 .

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The sole question which arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the appointment of the petitioners could have been cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The principles of natural justice are regarded as important procedural safeguard against undue exercise of power by an authority. The chances of an administrative authority taking decision in ignorance of other factors are reduced as if the hearing is given to the person concerned who will bring all the issues involved in the situation. In such a case the decision making authority shall take into account all the relevant facts and issues involved in the decision and would come to a right decision. Thus, the principles of natural justice is considered as an effective method to protect the interest of individual as he can participate in administrative process affecting him.

It is well settled in law that in all cases of violation of principles of natural justice, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not necessarily interfere and set at naught the action taken by an authority. The Court has to consider the genesis of the action contemplated, the reasons thereof and the reasonable possibility of prejudice while considering the effect of violation of the principles of natural justice. See: The State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association and Others, AIR 2002 SC 1223 : (2002) 93 FLR 657 : (2002) 2 JT 419 : (2002) LabIC 965 : (2002) 2 LLJ 820 : (2002) 2 SCALE 367 : (2002) 3 SCC 302 : (2002) 2 SCR 121 : (2002) 2 SLJ 403 : (2002) AIRSCW 1010 : (2002) 2 Supreme 252 .

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that there is no irregularity in the process of selection. Certain complaints were received only at the stage of counseling on the ground that the dates of counseling were not properly advertised due to which persons placed above the petitioners in the merit list could not submit their application and could not participate in the process of counseling. The aforesaid opinion has been formed by the respondents on the basis of enquiry report which has been submitted by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, which is the foundation of prejudicial action, which has been taken against the petitioners. However, admittedly, neither the copy of the aforesaid enquiry report was supplied to the petitioners nor any notice was issued to them before passing the impugned orders. The appointment of the petitioners has been cancelled unilaterally in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The action of the respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioners unilaterally without affording them any opportunity of hearing, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

In view of the preceding analysing, the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents would be at liberty to issue notice to the petitioners indicating the ground on which their orders of appointment are sought to be cancelled. Needless to state that any adverse material which is sought to be used against the petitioners shall also be supplied to them and the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to submit their reply. The respondents, after considering the reply, which may be submitted by the petitioners, would be at liberty to pass fresh order containing reasons, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the competent authority shall examine the cases of the individual petitioners on its own merit.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.