Decided on August 06,2012



HONBLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) AN advertisement was issuedon 18th September, 2007 by the respondents. Inviting applications for the post of Mini Aganbari Karyakatri. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 Smt. KiranDevi applied. The petitioner was selected and was given anappointment on 03.12.2007 pursuant to which she joined and started working as a Mini Aganbari Karyakatri. By an order dated 15th January, 2008, the services of the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present petition.
(2.) IN paragraph 12 of the writpetition, the petitioner contended that no notice or ooportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order. Upon theuassing of the impugned order dated 15th January, 2008, the respondents issued an appointment letter to Smt. Kiran Devi who started working on the post of Mini Aganbari Karyakatri. Subsequently, when the petitioner, Smt. Sunita Deyi obtained an interim order .dated 29.09.2008 by which the order of termination dated 15th January, 2008 was stayed, the respondents cancelled the order of appointment of" Smt. Kiran Devi and reinstated the petitioner, Smt. Sunita Devi. As a result of the cancellation of the appointment of Smt. Kiran Devi Smt. Kiran Devi filed a writ petitioner No. 144 of 2009 (S/S) which has also been tagged with this present writ petition.
(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel for .the State contended that the order of appointment of the petitioner, Smt. Sunita Devi was in violation of the Government Order dated 12th December, 2007, by which reference has been made to earlier Government Order dated 3rd August, 2007. Clause 9 of this Government order dated 3rd August, 2007 indicates that preference would be given to widows, which in the instant case, was not done. The learned Standing Counsel further stated that the same stipulation, was also given in the advertisement dated 18th September, 2007. If the appointment of the petitioner, Smt. Sunita Devi was in violation of the Governrnent Order, it was open to the respondents to cancel the selection process or cancel the appointment made through that selection process, but before doing so, it was necessary to give a notice to the petitioner and give her an opportunity of hearing. This admittedly had not been done. The petitioner has categorically statedlnparagraph 12 of the writ petition that no opportunity of hearing was provided. The respondents in their counter affidavit has not denied this fact. Since the order of termination entails penal consequences, the Same is violative of the principle of natural justice as embodied and enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. Writ Petition No. 124 of 2008 (S/S), Smt. Sunita Devi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others is allowed. The Writ Petition No. 144 of 2009 (S/S), Smt. Kiran Devi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others accordingly fails and is dismissed. The respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with law, if they are so advised to proceed any further.;

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