GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents No. 8. 7. 2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dtd. 30. 5. 2002 (Annex.)/8) by which appointment of the4 petitioner on the post of Additional Education Assistant was cancelled by quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:- i) That an advertisement dtd. 6. 5. 2002 was issued for appointment to the post of Additional Education Assistant/female Para Teachers for the Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Schools situated in various gram Panchayats. It was further submitted by the petitioner that he is concerned with the advertisement issued for the Gram Panchayat Rajasar @ Karnisar, Dist. Bikaner for which one post of Additional Education Assistant was advertised. ii) That an order dtd. 20. 5. 2002 was issued by the State Government (respondent No. 1) whereby procedure for selection was laid down for appointment on the post of Additional Education Assistant in the Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Schools situated in various gram Panchayats. iii) That a press notice dtd. 20. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/1) was issued by the Director, Primary Education, Bikaner whereby it was made clear that in case any of the candidates is aggrieved by the selection of Additional Education Assistant/para teachers, then within a period of 3 days of the selection, he may file a representation to the Block Primary Education Officer and the Committed constituted at Block Level shall take decision on the grievance within period of three days. iv) That further case of the petitioner is that a letter dtd. 21. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/2) was written by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Rajasar @ Karnisar to the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Lunkaransar in which it was submitted that one Ada Ram was also one of the candidates, but he was much lower in the merit due to lesser percentage of marks, but the Gram Sabha insisted that the petitioner despite higher percentage of marks should not be appointed as he did not belong to same village and, therefore, the selection of the petitioner was not made and on the contrary to give appointment to a candidate belonging to same village, name of the petitioner was not approved. v) That aggrieved by the action of the Gram Sabha in not approving the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Additional Education Assistant only on the ground that he did not belong the same village, the petitioner filed a representation dtd. 23. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/3) before the Block Primary Education Officer. vi) That in his representation dtd. 23. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/3), the case of the petitioner was that he had secured 57. 75% marks whereas Shri Uda Ram had secured only 43. 09% marks and thus he stood higher in merit list. vii) That further case of the petitioner is that through decision dtd. 23. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/4), the concerned Committee selected the petitioner on the post of Additional Education Assistant and approved his selection on the ground that he had secured higher percentage of marks than Uda Ram. viii) Further case of the petitioner is that through order dtd. 28. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/5) passed by respondent No. 3 (Senior Dist. Education Officer (Elementary Education), Panchayat Samiti, Lunkaransar), the petitioner was informed that he was selected on the post of Additional Education Assistant and he was directed to report for training. ix) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the order dtd. 28. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/5), he himself reported for duties and was sent on training, but through order dtd. 6. 6. 2002 (Annex. P/6) he was relieved from the training and by the impugned order dtd. 30. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/8), the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Additional Education Assistant was cancelled. Hence, this writ petition which the above mentioned prayer. In this writ petition, following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner: i) That the petitioner was not served with any notice and he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before cancelling his appointment vide order dtd. 30. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/8 ). ii) That since the petitioner stood higher in merit than Uda Ram, therefore, he was rightly selected and rightly sent for training, therefore, cancellation of appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he was not a resident of same village is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for that the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Deepak Kumar Suthar reported in (1 ). iii) That appointment of the petitioner was cancelled without assigning any reason. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per minimum prescribed qualifications for a Additional Education Assistant was that he should have knowledge of local language and also knowledge about the Gram Panchayat concerned. Thus, in view of this fact, for selection on the post of Additional Education Assistant, local person was insisted upon and in these circumstances, cancellation of appointment of the petitioner was proper and justified and hence the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the counsel for the parties. There is not dispute on the point that the petitioner stood higher in merit than Uda Ram. There is also no dispute on the point that through order dtd. 28. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/5), the petitioner was selected for the post of Additional Education Assistant.
(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that through order dtd. 6. 6. 2002 (Annex. P/6), the petitioner was relieved from the training and from order dtd. 6. 6. 2002 (Annex. P/6), it is also clear that he has undergone training for the period from 1. 6. 2002 to 6. 6. 2002. There is also no dispute on the point that through order dated. 30. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/8), appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, but in the order dtd. 30. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/8) no reasons have been assigned as how why his appointment was cancelled and before passing the order dtd. 30. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/8) no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Now the question which arises for consideration is in the facts and circumstances, just mentioned above, the impugned order dtd. 30. 5. 2002 (Annex. P/8) by which appointment of the petitioner on the post of Additional Education Assistant was cancelled can be sustained or not. ;