Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 510 (MP)

Shahina Praveen v. State of M. P.

1999-07-27

C.K.PRASAD

body1999
ORDER 1. In both the writ Petitions, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 22.9.1998 (Annexure P/5) whereby, the Collector in purported exercise of its power under Section 85 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act has cancelled the appointment of the petitioners as Shiksha Kanni, Grade III. Petitioners further pray for quashing of the order dated 28.9.1998 (Annexure P/6) of the Commissioner whereby, it has confirmed the aforesaid order of the Collector dated 22.9.1998. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners in pursuance of the advertisement for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi, Gr. III applied for the same. Petitioners were called for interview and they appeared before the Selection Committee. A list of selected candidates was published which included the petitioners and thereafter appointment letters were issued in their favour. Thereafter, they joined their respective schools in which they were posted. Complaint was received by the Collector that the appointments of the Shiksha Karmis; Grade III have been done illegally and without following the procedure prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. An enquiry was made and the Collector found that subject experts were not called for the interview and in place of the members of the Selection Committee, their nominees were representing them in the Selection Committee. He further found that some of the members of the Selection Committee were present in the meeting of the Selection Committee at the time when their relations appeared for interview, Collector further found that reservation roster was not followed and more than reserved seats have been filled-up and appointment letters issued. It also came to the notice of the Collector that persons who have secured more marks and placed higher in the merit list, were not called for interview and many of the candidates whose names ought to have been included in the merit list, were not included. In conclusion, the Collector found that the entire selection has been made in the teeth of the: provisions of M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules. 1997, hereinafter referred to as the 'Recruitment Rules' and accordingly in exercise of its power under Section 85(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 cancelled the entire selection by the impugned order dated 22.9.1998. 1997, hereinafter referred to as the 'Recruitment Rules' and accordingly in exercise of its power under Section 85(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 cancelled the entire selection by the impugned order dated 22.9.1998. The order of the Collector has been confirmed by the commissioner by the impugned order dt. 28.9.1998. 3. Shri Pathak, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that Section 85 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, confers power on the Collector to suspend the execution of any resolution passed by the Janpad Panchayat, but here in the present case, petitioners having already been appointed and joined their places of posting, the question of suspending the execution of resolution does not arise at all. 4. Shri V.K. Shukla, G.A. however, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that Rule 12 of the Recruitment Rules provides for appeal against the order passed under the Recruitment Rules in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and not withstanding the fact that the Collector has stated that he has exercised the power under Section 85 of the Act but infact, he has exercised his appellate power under the Recruitment Rules itself. According to Shri Shukla, wrong mentioning of a provision in an order itself shall not vitiate the order. 5. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that the Collector being the appellate authority in regard to the appointment of Shiksha Karmis of Janpad Panchayat, according to the Recruitment Rules, he has the power to go into the question of validity of the appointments. Here in the present case, complaint was received by the Collector that irregularities and illegalities have been committed while making the appointments. Collector found the entire selection process stinking and accordingly he cancelled the entire appointment and directed for holding of fresh interview for appointment. He further debarred the members of the Education Committee participating in the interview of their relations and directed that candidates be called for interview strictly in accordance with the merit list. Collector is possessed of such power by virtue of Rule 12 of the Recruitment Rules. In my opinion mere mentioning of Section 85 in the order impugned shall not vitiate the impugned orders. 6. Collector is possessed of such power by virtue of Rule 12 of the Recruitment Rules. In my opinion mere mentioning of Section 85 in the order impugned shall not vitiate the impugned orders. 6. Shri Pathak, then, submits that one of the grounds on which the Collector has invalidated the entire selection is failure to follow reservation roster. This in the submission of Shri Pathak shall not render the entire selection vitiated. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Benny T.D. and others v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and another, (1998) 5 SCC 269 . Here in the present case the Collector has not found the entire selection to be vitiated only on the ground that reservation roster was not followed but has found that persons scoring higher marks in the merit list were not called for interview, relations were members of the Selection Committee, subject experts were not appointed for interview and instead of the members of the Selection Committee, their nominees held the interview. In my opinion, cumulative effect of the aforesaid infirmities is that the entire selection has been vitiated and the Collector was right in upsetting the same. 7. Shri Pathak then submits that the order of the Collector cancelling the appointment of the petitioners is illegal as before doing the same, they were not given show-cause notices or opportunity of hearing. In support of this submission, Shri Pathak has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar v. State of MP. 1993 MPU SN 125 and of the Supreme Court in the case of Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and others (1998) 8 SCC 194 . Further reliance has been placed by Me Pathak on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J. Dose Dhanapaul v. S. Thomas and others, (1996) 3 SCC 587 . None of the authorities relied on by Shri Pathak is of any assistance to him. In the present case petitioners were not chosen for cancellation of their appointment. Here individuals have not been faulted but the selection process itself. No stigma is attached in such circumstances. Hence, the authorities relied on are clearly distinguishable. 8. None of the authorities relied on by Shri Pathak is of any assistance to him. In the present case petitioners were not chosen for cancellation of their appointment. Here individuals have not been faulted but the selection process itself. No stigma is attached in such circumstances. Hence, the authorities relied on are clearly distinguishable. 8. I had the occasion to consider the applicability of the principle of natural justice in such circumstances to writ petition No. 4816/98 disposed of on 16.12.1998 Smt. Parvati Ahirwar and Anr. v. Collector, Panna and Ors. [1999 (I) Vidhi Bhasvar 295] and in that I have held as follows: "15. However, I am of the opinion that notwithstanding any specific provision in Rule 3 of the Appeal Rules providing for notice and opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person, principles of natural justice, in ordinary circumstance would require giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the person aggrieved. In the present case, however, no individual person has been chosen for cancellation of the appointment and the entire selection has been faulted and not the individual candidate. No stigma has been cast on the selected candidates. From what has been found by the Collector, it is apparent that the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit. Principle of natural justice is not an unruly horse, its application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As in the present case, Individual has not been faulted but the entire selection has been found to be stinking, same has been annulled by the Collector in exercise of its appellate power. However, by way of abundant caution, I may state that in case when appointment of some of the candidates is annulled and rest are allowed to continue, in such a situation, notice to aggrieved person is must. But said principle shall not be attracted when entire selection has been found to be bad. In the peculia1'facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the order of the Collector cannot be faulted on the ground that notices were not given to the selectees. It is worth noticing that the members of the Education Committee who made selection were heard by the Collector." What has been stated in this Judgment applies with equal force in the present case. It is worth noticing that the members of the Education Committee who made selection were heard by the Collector." What has been stated in this Judgment applies with equal force in the present case. In view of the aforesaid, no notice was required to be given to the petitioners. I do not find any merit in this submission of Shri Pathak. 8. All the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners having no substance, do not find any merit in both the writ petitions and they are dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.