Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1282 (PNJ)

Urmil v. State Of Punjab

2004-11-23

M.M.KUMAR, S.S.NIJJAR

body2004
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioner claims to have been selected on the post of Hindi Mistress. She was not appointed. The petitioner, therefore, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 12355 of 2000. This Court on 15.1.2002 passed the following order:- "It could not be disputed during the course of arguments that the matter herein is covered by judgment of this Court, Annexure P7 dated 5.3.1999. That being so, petitioner shall be permitted to join on the post she was selected and appointed. Disposed of accordingly. January 15, 2002 Sd/- V.K.Bali,Judge. Sd/ Jasbir Singh, Judge. 2. When the petitioner was not permitted to join, she filed C.O.C.P. No. 810 of 2002. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the petitioner was permitted to join, in the meanwhile, the respondents had challenged the directions of this Court reproduced above by filing Civil Appeal No. 6750 of 1999 which was dismissed on 1.5.2000. During the pendency of these proceedings, the select list dated 16.11.1996, Annexure P6 attached to the writ petition, which had been earlier published, was revised by the departmental selection on 2.5.1997. The revised select list was published in two newspapers, daily Ajit and daily Tribune1 on 2.5.1997. In the revised merit list, the petitioner was not shown as selected. These facts were not brought to the notice of the department when the order was passed in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 12355 of 2000. When this important fact came to the knowledge of the respondents, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 6.8.2003 asking her to explain as to why her services should not be terminated. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the respondents on 29.9.2003. Having considered the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have dispensed with her services with immediate effect vide order dated 27.11.2003. Relevant part of the order is as under:- "When it came to the notice of the Department that Smt. Urmil, Hindi Mistress had not been selected in the revised selection list dated 2.5.1997 the directorate vide its order No. 20/237-2000-E2(4) dated 18.6.2003 issued show cause notice proposing to terminate her services. Smt. Urmil, Hindi Mistress replied the show cause notice on 29.9.2003. The Department considered the reply of the employee. Smt. Urmil, Hindi Mistress replied the show cause notice on 29.9.2003. The Department considered the reply of the employee. Finding her reply unsatisfactorily the employee was given an opportunity of hearing on 14.11.2003 at 12.20 p.m. After hearing the employee, I Sohan Lal, Director Public Instruction (Secondary Education) Punjab, have come to the conclusion that the employee cannot be kept in service as she has not been selected in the revised selection list. The services of Smt. Urmil, Hindi Mistress, Government Middle School, Lutki Majra (Patiala) are dispensed with immediate effect." 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since she had been appointed on the express directions of this Court, the respondents could not order the termination of her services. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Virender Singh Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., J.T. 2004(9) S.C. 293. The learned counsel has relied on the following observations:- "Despite the aforesaid conclusion, the Act [proviso to Section 4(3) to the extent it takes away the appointments already made, some of the petitioners had been appointed much before enforcement of the Act (ten in number as noticed herein before) in implementation of this Courts decision, would be unreasonable, harsh, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The law does not permit the legislature to take back what has been granted in implementation of the Courts decision. Such a course is impermissible." 4. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid observations are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the present case, no legislation has been enacted taking away the right which had accrued to the petitioner with retrospective effect. In fact, the respondents have merely rectified the mistake earlier committed which is also the basis of the directions issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 12355 of 2000. The respondents did not straightaway terminate the services of the petitioner. A show cause notice was served upon her. She was given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. She was even given an opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, the respondents had complied with rules of natural justice also before passing the impugned order. In such circumstances, the respondents were fully justified in ordering termination of the services of the petitioner. She was given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. She was even given an opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, the respondents had complied with rules of natural justice also before passing the impugned order. In such circumstances, the respondents were fully justified in ordering termination of the services of the petitioner. This view of ours will find support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The District Collector & Chairman Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990(4) S.L.R. 237, wherein it has been observed as under:- "It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint person with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the prepetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact." Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we find no merit in the petitioner.