CIVIL APPEAL None on 17 April 1989

;-78'5i-,'^

;iii^?Tg>tR'ii*aanan^CTiCTrail

\avq <-qi«|«<),l»Tll'«<l<«,RrtWyt

*fl*1«l^TT^ ..^.r....i....v.^...T-.^y..^..... ^^20

311^91VISS (ijclij^^)

B^tiT»R^lftcT3II^?Tq'Kifn^l iiinV^r'1^'^1 '(RI+^K?>dlR)*f3II^9T

8B: Hon'ble Shirl Manindala Mohan Shrivastava, J.25.01.2010

Shri S.L. Chaadra,j^dvocate appears on behalfof Shri R.S.Patel, coiinsel for the petitloner,Shri Arvind Dubey,panel Lawycr for theState/respondents.

The instanthas been filed assniting the ordcr of petitioiAtm.exure A-4 dated 26.1:[, 1991 by which, the petitioner has beentenninated froiu the servkj;s.

Case of the petitioB);r is that pursuaat to Advertisement ofAnnexure R-l dated 8.6.11p89 iaviting applications for appoiatmentto fhe post of Upper Divisj[on. Teacher, the petitioner submitted herappllcation. The:r had already appeared ia B.A. feial petition^exnTnination and the lasDpaper was held on 17.4.1989 and fheresults were declared inthe 2nd week ofJune, 1989, however theinark sheet was issucdlonly ou14.7.1989 from fhe CoUegeAufhorities.

Purfher case of fhehietitioner is that after she submitted herappUcation, it wasscrullinizedby tiie authorities and she wasselected for appointmentto the post and only after she subnflttedher mark sheet, the ordejof appoijtitment was issued aot onfy infavour of the petitioner b|bt also ntunber of oflier caadidates videAiuiexure A-l.

<dCTi "tiioirttt, u>-rfl'9<i<»,fic»i«y<(

....y.P..(.4?.^A^./A<%J.

*11Hc»l?SW

W^20

3II^?I qaq? ('3?tgERE)

g^arsR^riigan^rqii*i[n<11i *iii»T^"ls'^lt("ltsi<tzfcaiKi*<3Il^?TAxnongst varioussujbiaissions made by leamed counsel forfhe petitioner, one of theBkainground to assail fhe iiapugned ordertoy which petitioner'sserficeshave been tenninatcd is ttiat theorder of termination datc48<b February, 1990 was issued wifhoutgiving aay opportuiuty(?f hearing to fhe petitioncr.Learaedcounselfor ttiepetitio4ersubmitsthat after fheorder ofappointment was issued)the Coinpetent Authority imdertookscrutinv ofvariousappom|tmentsmadc vide order ofAnnexure A-ldated 8th February, l990|It is said fhat afler inquiry made andscrutmy tmdertaken, it^aa found that fhe petitiorter was notentitled to bc appoiated]as she subinitted her inark sheet ofpassiag B.A. examjnation|on 15.7.1989 which was issued by theconcemed Univcrsity on14.7.1989. whereas thc last date forsubaaission ofappUcationp>r the said post was 30.6.1989,Froin fhe pleadiags||on record, it is ctear that the pclitionerliad applied for appointm^;nt to the post and her appUcation waseiitertamed and scrutixui^d.zii It is not the case of the respondentsihat the petitionerplayjedany fiaudor inisrepreseatedfheauttiorities. However, fhe^issertion of fhe petitioaer ftiat her resiiltof B.A, examination wereltdeclared ih fhe 2nd Week of Jime 1989has not been seriouslydfebutedby tfie respondents.From fhe perusalof fhe ^dvertiseinent wlat wereftiereqiiired qualifications fo^appoiutnient to fhe post has not becnclearly stated. Respond(eiltshave relied upon another cu-cular ofAunexare R-2 dated 21*tI]>ecember, 1989 and it has been stated in >dw< "qi«irt«,yTTl'H-ild, Rri y-<

rfg; ...^.P.^.^TRt.^.fAe?.^... ^20

*ii*i«i^m^

3IT^?T qa^ (>jcli^«l<d)

3ir^?TcBTR'li*swiTw^iferaii^sr'}-tPKlfcxfl'111*IC)T*ffel^l 'jfSl'i^l-isptiTan^sraCTfe^srt^tTaii^sr

Conclusion

the retum wifh referenceb the sajd circular that fhe selection wasia view of the poUcy laid d(twn thereia.Looking to fhenatulrejre of controversy involved, it cannot besaul that the order of aijpoiutinent[was][ void][ or][ non-est.][ Undcr]fhese circumstaiices, in n|^y opinion' fhe impugned order descrvesto be set aside onlv on|fhe ground of viokition of princq)le ofnatural justice,Asfhe|order of temxiuationinvolvedcivilconsequences, it wasiu);umbent on the part of respondentsauthorities to hear thepeptionei|itioner[before][ coming][ to][ a][ conclusion][ ia]an ex-parte inqiuiy fhat|the oetitioner was not entitled to beappoiuted.In the result, fhepejtitiiItition. is aUowed. The impugned order oftermiaation dated 26.12.1(&91 is hereby set aside. As the petltioucriscontuiuingin.servic^;s by virtueof iuteriia order dated17.1.1992, no furfher oixjlers wifh regard to other conscquentialbenefits are necessaiy.No orders as to cosll

ill.

Sd/-stolvastavax^'Mr

Suilia