Sukrit Das Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing

for the respondents.

This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 2695 of 2009, whereby,

while issuing the directions as contained in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, the matter was remitted back to the Department for holding enquiry

and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

The appellants participated in the selection process for recruitment of the ‘Jail Warder’, initiated vide advertisement dated 21.12.2005 and, on

being selected, were appointed on 06.12.2006.

Notice dated 15.05.2009 was served on them stating that irregularities were committed in the selection process and accordingly, their appointment

orders were cancelled.

When the aforesaid notice dated 15.05.2009 came to be challenged in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, an interim order of status quo

was passed on 27.05.2009 and accordingly, the appellants were continuing in service.

Before the issuance of notice dated 15.05.2009, no opportunity of hearing was granted and accordingly, the learned Single Judge took the view that

opportunity of hearing at the time of enquiry should be afforded. Accordingly, at paragraph 4, it is stated as follows:

“4. It may be possible that all the 13 appointments may not be suffering from any defect. Even if one or more appointees have been selected fairly,

there is no reason why their appointment should be cancelled. Therefore, ordinarily, in such cases, opportunity of hearing at the time of enquiry should

be afforded. The petitioners having worked for about 14 years, it appears, ends of justice would be served if the impugned notices are quashed and the

matter is remitted back to the Department for holding enquiry, if they so desire, against each of the petitioners and thereafter to take final decision in

the matter, in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.â€​

Mr. Rajkamal Singh submits that when the appellants have been working for 14 years, the learned Single Judge ought not to have remitted the

matter back to the Department for holding enquiry and the learned Single Judge ought to have given a quietus to the issue.

Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate supports the impugned order.

No doubt, the appellants have been working for the last 14 years, but what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that such continuation in service was

because of interim order passed on 27.05.2009. The appointment orders of the appellants were cancelled within a period of 03 years from the date of

their appointment. However, before such cancellation, notices were not issued to the appellants granting them an opportunity of hearing. It was

because of violation of principles of natural justice, impugned notices came to be set aside.

In a matter of present nature, we are of the opinion that when there are allegations of manipulation in the recruitment process, the order passed by

the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be bad in law, as purity of selection process cannot be compromised and a selection process cannot be

tainted in any manner.

Considering the above, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is

dismissed. No cost.