Decided on August 18,2008

TIWARILAL Respondents


- (1.)THE petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 29. 04. 1994 (Annexure A/5) whereby, selection of the petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant Teacher was found as illegal, and in his place, the respondent No. 6 was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant Teacher. He further challenges the legality of the order dated 06. 05. 1994 (Annexure A/6), passed by the Deputy Director, Education, District, Bilaspur, whereby, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled, being erroneous. The petitioner prays for the consequential relief and grant of salary w. e. f. April, 1994 onwards and regularization of his service in the regular pay scale. Originally, the application was filed before the M. P. State administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, and was numbered as O. A. No. 3653 of 1995. On dissolution of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and numbered as above.
(2.)THE indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant Teacher through selection conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer (for short `sdo') and the President, Teachers Selection Committee, Lormi. The petitioner was called for interview to be held on 08. 02. 94 pursuant to intimation dated 24. 01. 94 (Annexure A/1 ). The petitioner was accordingly selected for appointment in Primary school Putkikhurd, Block Pandariya, District, Bilaspur, by order dated 28. 02. 94 (Annexure A/2 ). The petitioner joined the service on 09. 03. 94 (Annexure A/4 ). Thereafter, by order dated 06. 05. 94 (Annexure A/6), the selection of the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of complaint that his selection was erroneous. Thus, this petition.
(3.)SHRI P. S. Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that once the petitioner has been selected and appointed on the post, his services can not be terminated without affording an opportunity of hearing or following principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing to put forward his case and no enquiry was held in presence of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned orders dated 29. 09. 94 (Annexure A/5) and 06. 05. 94 (Annexure A/6) are vitiated and deserve to be quashed.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.