Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1192 (JHR)

Ajay Kumar Kujur v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-11-27

TAPEN SEN

body2002
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard. 2. The order dated 4.8.2001 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga canceling the appointment of the Petitioner without assigning any reasons, is under challenge in this case. A consequential prayer has been made that after setting aside the aforementioned order, the petitioner be allowed to continue to work as Assistant Teacher under the Respondent No. 6 (i.e., Government Middle School, Naru Nawadih,. Kisko at Lohardaga). 3. An advertisement for the appointment of Assistant Teachers for Government Primary School was published in the year 1991 through Bihar Public Service Commission. Pursuant thereto the petitioner applied for the District of Lohardaga and after having been successful in the preliminary examination, he had been granted a provisional admit card for appearing in the main-examination. He did appear in the final examination and after facing an interview was declared successful and his results were duly published in the "Rojgar Prabhat Khabar" as is evident from Annexure 3 to the Writ Application, his roll number having been printed under the heading Lohardaga being Roll No. 004797. 4. Notwithstanding the publication of his results, the authorities were not forthcoming in issuing an appointment letter to the Petitioner as a result whereof the Petitioner approached the concerned authority by various representations, one of which has been brought on record as Annexure 4. Upon further enquiry as stated at paragraph 9 he came to learn that by a resolution dated 20.7.1994 the Establishment Committee had prepared a panel in which the name of the Petitioner had been inserted at Sl. No. 127 and he was selected for the Primary School, Gamharia, Senha at Lohardaga. In support of the aforementioned contention the Petitioner has relied upon Annexure 5. 5. Thereafter the Government of Bihar by a letter dated 28.7.1994 issued a direction upon all Deputy Commissioners to issue appointment letters district- wise but nothing was done in the matter relating to the petitioner. During the course of an enquiry conducted, it came to light that although the appointment letter had been prepared but the same had actually not been issued and it remained confined in the office. This situation prevailed not only in relation to the petitioner but also in relation to five other persons. In support of aforementioned contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Writ Petition and also upon Annexure 7. This situation prevailed not only in relation to the petitioner but also in relation to five other persons. In support of aforementioned contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Writ Petition and also upon Annexure 7. Thereafter it appears that the Establishment Committee took a decision vide resolution dated 30.5.2001 to issue fresh appointment letter to the petitioner and also decided to issue a notice to show cause upon the concerned clerk for not having posted the earlier letter of appointment. In support of the aforementioned contention the petitioner relies upon paragraph 10 of Annexure 8. Thereafter an appointment letter was issued being appointment letter dated 12.7.2001 vide Annexure 9. Subsequently the petitioner gave his joining on 19.7.2001 and the same was accepted by the respondent No. 5 whereafter the petitioner was relieved on the same day for the purposes of submitting his joining before the respondent No. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner joined before the respondent No. 6 on 20.7.2001 and thereafter he started to perform his duty. All of a sudden, the petitioner was shocked and surprised to learn that on 4.8.2001 an office order had been passed from the office of the respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder it was intimated that as per order of the Deputy Commissioner the letter of appointment dated 12.7.2001 (Annexure 9) issued to the petitioner was being cancelled with immediate effect. No reasons were given for the aforementioned office order and prior to issuance thereof the petitioner was not even noticed nor any opportunity of hearing was given. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents the stand taken is at paragraph 11 and from a perusal thereof it is evident that what the respondents are submitting is that the order of cancellation of appointment is just and proper since the petitioner did not disclose the fact that he had filed nomination for election as Member of Legislative Assembly and his name appeared at Sl. No. 1 of the Ballot Paper of the Legislative Assembly Election of the year 1995, i.e., much prior to the appointment of the petitioner. 7. The aforesaid stand of the respondents is totally unreasonable, illegal, without any rationale and cannot be accepted by this Court. 8. No. 1 of the Ballot Paper of the Legislative Assembly Election of the year 1995, i.e., much prior to the appointment of the petitioner. 7. The aforesaid stand of the respondents is totally unreasonable, illegal, without any rationale and cannot be accepted by this Court. 8. This Court is also satisfied that the order of cancellation of appointment must also be quashed not only because it is a one lined order without any reasons but also because it is unreasonable and without any rationale. In fact no notice whatsoever appears to have been given to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the aforementioned order. The reasons assigned in the Counter Affidavit as has been stated above appears to have been taken only for the purpose of defending this case. It is well settled that when an order is based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by addition of grounds later brought out. Reference in this context may be made to the case of Mr. Mohinder Singh v. The Chief Election Commissioner, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 . This is exactly what has happened in this case. After so much of procedural delays, the petitioner was finally given his letter of appointment. All of a sudden that was cancelled without assigning any reasons and without even bothering to give any notice to the petitioner. When the petitioner challenges the same, the respondents have come out with a weird ground at paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit and goes on to justify the impugned order by saying that the petitioner has not disclosed about filing of nomination in the year 1995. Filing of nomination in the year 1995 has no nexus with the letter of appointment as the same was issued in the year 2001. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Order is wholly illegal and therefore the same must be set aside. 10. Consequently this Writ Application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner stands reinstated to his post with all consequential benefits. 11. There shall however be no order as to costs.