Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1039 (MP)

Jung Bahadur Singh Yadav v. State of M. P.

2000-09-20

S.S.JHA

body2000
By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7.9.1998 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Collector, District Gwalior, cancelling the appointment of Shiksha Karmi Categories II and III and that of Urdu teachers. This Court issued notices to the respondents and the respondents were required to explain under which provision of law the Collector was empowered to cancel the appointments of the petitioners in Nagar Panchayat Pichhore, Tehsil Dabra, District Gwalior. The grievance of the petitioners is that under the scheme of Shiksha Kanni, the Collector has no jurisdiction to interfere with the appointments; any person aggrieved by the appointments may file a complaint before appropriate authority which shall be decided according to law. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the Collector cannot invoke his power for cancellation of appointment. The scheme for appointment of Shiksha Kanni is filed as Annexure P-3. Rule 10 of the Scheme, provides that the services of Temporary Shiksha Kannis can be terminated by serving one month's notice or pay of one month in lieu thereof. Appointment letters were issued to the petitioners. After issuance of appointment letters, some enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Collector' Gwalior and after holding enquiry, the Deputy Collector has found certain irregularities in the selection and directed 'the Deputy Director (Education) to prepare a merit list by calling applications, three times the vacant seats, with the help of Block Development Officer. He has directed that for selection there should be a Committee consisting of Deputy Director (Education) and two experts of the subject including one woman. He further directed that no one except the members of Education Society of Nagar Panchayat shall remain present in the interview. This report of the Deputy Collector was accepted and the appointments have been cancelled and fresh appointments have been made. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in view of the scheme of Shiksha Karmi, the procedure adopted by the Collector is improper and it could only be examined whether selection was strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules. Under the Rules for selection of Shiksha Karmi Category II and III, it is provided that the Selection Committee shall be constituted according to Schedule II of the Rules. Under the Rules for selection of Shiksha Karmi Category II and III, it is provided that the Selection Committee shall be constituted according to Schedule II of the Rules. Schedule of the Rules provides that President of the Standing Committee shall be the Chairman and members Chief Municipal Officer, Deputy Director (Education) or Assistant Commissioner (Tribal Department), District Organiser (Tribal Development) Department and an Officer of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes if the members of this category are not represented in the Committee. Therefore, the directions contained in Annexure P-1 are contrary to the recruitment rules and cannot be made. Notices were issued to the Collector to demonstrate what are his powers to pass orders. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a document Annexure R/6 which is a note-sheet. It appears that after notices were issued, note-sheet dated 22.2.1999 is written. In this note- sheet, it is written that the High Court has enquired under which authority the Collector had passed the orders and the Government Advocate has asked approval of the Collector for the reply. On the note-sheet, subordinate has written that the Collector shall approve the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Collector has approved that the orders were passed by the Deputy Collector in consultation with him. Thus, it shows that there is total non-application of mind by the Collector of the District. For the purposes of powers, Circular Annexure R/1 is filed by the respondents. In, this circular; duties have been assigned to the Collectors. Collectors are directed to enquire into complaints of the public at large and they should be decided. But from this circular the counsel for the State was unable to point out that the complaints will include statutory complaints which are to be decided by appropriate Authorities under law. Thus, no powers are vested with the Collector to decide the complaint pertaining to recruitment of Shiksha Karmi under the rules framed for appointment of Shiksha Karmi, under the provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act. Counsel for intervenor Shri A.M. Naik also could not point out that the Collector is empowered to pass such orders. Considering the facts of the case, the order dated 7.9.1998 Annexure P-1 is quashed being without jurisdiction. However, if the appropriate Authority feels that there were. If regularities in the appointments, it shall act in accordance with law. Counsel for intervenor Shri A.M. Naik also could not point out that the Collector is empowered to pass such orders. Considering the facts of the case, the order dated 7.9.1998 Annexure P-1 is quashed being without jurisdiction. However, if the appropriate Authority feels that there were. If regularities in the appointments, it shall act in accordance with law. If it is felt that enquiry as to irregularities in appointments is necessary, it shall be held and pass the order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, petition succeeds and is allowed without any order as to costs.