Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 577 (MP)

Ramakant Mishra v. State of M. P.

2005-05-03

A.K.MISHRA

body2005
ORDER 1. In these writ petitions, order (P/l) passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, has been assailed. 2. Case has a chequered history. Petitioners were selected and appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III in the selection process which was held in terms of the rules framed for the purpose of appointment of Shiksha karmis called M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recuitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (hereafter referred to as "Rules"). On completion of 3 years' period of service on probation, their services were confirmed in the year 2002. 300 posts were advertised in the year 1998 of Shiksha karmis Grade III. Final list was prepared. On 3.9.1998, appointment orders were issued of 296 selected candidates. Provision of reservation was duly observed, vertical and horizontal, to the respective categories. Petitioners had joined in the first week of September. They are working in the various schools. 3. Respondent No.14 Ms. Shakuntala Singh had filed an appeal on 25.9.1998 mainly assailing the appointment of Shashikala Singh, Ku. Sangita Tiwari, Smt. Sunita Shukla, Ku. Sulochana Shukla, Smt. Champa Shukla and Ku. Sarla Soni, respondents No. 8 to 13 in WP (S) No.5181/2005. 4. It is averred in the petitions that the services of the petitioners were found to be satisfactory, as such their services have been confirmed w.e.f. 15.4.2002. They are in the permanent cadre of Shiksha Karmi. 5. Initially the Collector, as per order (P-5) dated 14.10.2000, cancelled the selection of respondents No.8 to 13 in WP(S) No. 5181/2005. Respondents No.8, 10 and 13 in WP (S) No. 5181/2005 challenged the order (P- 5) passed by the Collector. The order was set aside by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, as per order (P-6) dated 8.5.2001 as it was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to respondents No.8, 10 and 13. Ms. Shankuntala Singh respondent No. 14, had preferred a writ petition -- WP No.2637/2001 in this Court which was decided as per order (P-7) dated 3.3.2003. Matter was remitted to the Collector to decide the appeal afresh. This Court had directed that due opportunity of hearing he given to the concerned. Appeal was directed to be decided in accordance with law. Collector had issued notice to the parties, thereafter passed an order (P-8) on 29.10.2003. Matter was remitted to the Collector to decide the appeal afresh. This Court had directed that due opportunity of hearing he given to the concerned. Appeal was directed to be decided in accordance with law. Collector had issued notice to the parties, thereafter passed an order (P-8) on 29.10.2003. Direction was issued to the Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat, to look into the circular issued by the State Government and to take appropriate steps for appointing respondent No. 14 on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. Respondent No.14 Ms. Shakuntala Singh had challenged the order (PIS) passed by Collector by filing writ petition -- WP No. 2785/2003 which was not entertained due to availability of alternative remedy. Thereafter, revision was preferred. 6. It is submitted that in the revision the main grievance was that aforesaid six persons. respondents No.8 to 13, were relatives of respondents No.4 to 7 who were members of the Selection Committee. Commissioner, as per order (P-l) dated 4.4.2005, mainly on the ground that when matter has been remitted back, to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, entire selection list should have been cancelled, has cancelled the entire selection list without giving any further reason. It is clear from the orders (P-8 & P-1) that Commissioner and Collector both have looked only into correctness of the appointment of respondents No.8 to 13 in WP (S) No. 5181/2005. 7. Order (P-l) passed by the Commissioner has been assailed on the ground that there is total non-application of mind to the entire selection process. Order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. Entire selection list of 1998 could not have been cancelled. On the basis of finding recorded by Collector, Commissioner exceeded its jurisdiction. No reason has been assigned to quash the entire selection list by the Commissioner. Collector had gone into the validity of appointment of respondents No.8 to 13 only, not of entire selection process. Case was remitted to Collector only to give opportunity of hearing to the respondents whose selection was assailed and they were parties in appeal before the Collector. It was a limited remand, hence, entire process of selection was not open to challenge No further exercise has been done by the Commissioner than that of Collector, as such, cancellation of the entire list is wholly unwarranted. Order (P-1) be quashed. 8. It was a limited remand, hence, entire process of selection was not open to challenge No further exercise has been done by the Commissioner than that of Collector, as such, cancellation of the entire list is wholly unwarranted. Order (P-1) be quashed. 8. Shri S.P. Sethi, Shri Udayan Tiwari, Shri Praveen Verma, Shri Mrigendra Singh, Shri Kuldeep Singh, Shri Dileep Pandey, Shri Raj Kumar Tripathi and Shri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the order of Commissioner is without jurisdiction. Cancellation of entire list was not at all warranted. No finding has been recorded by the Commissioner in the order (P-l) to the effect that the entire selection stands vitiated. Hence, cancellation of selection list dated 3.9.1998 is bad in law. 9. Shri Vinod Mehta, learned Government Advocate, and Shri A.K. Tiwari for respondent No. 14 have submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner is proper as respondents No.8 to 13 were selected by respondents No.3 to 7. Respondents No.8 to 13 are relatives of members of Selection Committee, respondents No.3 to 7, as such selection stood vitiated. They have further submitted that in detail the question of illegalities and irregularities had not been gone into by Commissioner, hence, a committee be ordered to be constituted to look into the various irregularities and illegalities which were committed. No interference is called for in this writ petition. 10. The main question for consideration is whether cancellation of entire selection list dated 3.9.1998 is proper. Earlier, before remand of matter, the Collector had set aside the selection of respondents No.8 to 13 only without issuing the notice to them. Order was assailed before the Commissioner. Commissioner had set aside the order passed by the Collector as it was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to respondents No.8, 10 and 13. Respondent No. 14 Ms. Shakuntala Singh had preferred Writ Petition No. 2637/2003 in this Court which was decided by this Court as per order (P-7) dated 3.3.2003. This Court held: "9. So far as dispensing with service on respondents 4 to 10 is concerned, the Collector has not passed specific order. Respondent No. 14 Ms. Shakuntala Singh had preferred Writ Petition No. 2637/2003 in this Court which was decided by this Court as per order (P-7) dated 3.3.2003. This Court held: "9. So far as dispensing with service on respondents 4 to 10 is concerned, the Collector has not passed specific order. The Collector hearing the appeal although was having power to dispense with service on respondents 4 to 10, but when they were affected parties, then the Collector ought to have issued notice to the affected persons and after hearing those persons the appeal should have been decided on merits because the right of respondents 4 to 10 were involved in the case and they were having right to be heard. In the circumstances, the Collector erred in not affording opportunity of hearing to respondents 4 to 10 in the appeal, but the Commissioner, while hearing, should have considered this aspect, when no specific order was passed on the application by the collector and without passing any order on the application, the Collector heard and decided the appeal, then the Commissioner when considered this mistake then, in place of simply allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the Collector, the Commissioner ought to have remitted the matter before the Collector for adjudicating the case afresh after issuing notices to the affected persons. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The order passed by the Commissioner (Annex. P-4) in Revisions No. 219/Revision/2000-2001, 220/Revision /2000-2001, 218/Revisionl 2000-2001 and the order passed by the Additional Collector, Satna, dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure P-3) are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, Satna, to decide it afresh. The Collector, Satna, will himself examine the case after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned and will decide the appeal in accordance with law. This may be done within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order passed by this Court." 11. It is clear from the decision rendered by this Court that opportunity of hearing was directed to be given to respondents No. 8 to 13 in WP(S) No.5181/2005 as they were interested persons. Question that entire selection stood vitiated was not raised. It is clear from the decision rendered by this Court that opportunity of hearing was directed to be given to respondents No. 8 to 13 in WP(S) No.5181/2005 as they were interested persons. Question that entire selection stood vitiated was not raised. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, Collector has passed an order (P-8), close scrutiny of which indicates that the Collector .had examined only the case of respondents No.5 to 10 in the appeal before the Collector. He had not recorded finding that the entire selection process was vitiated. He had remanded the case to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, to consider the appointment of respondent No. 14 Ms. Shakuntala Singh. 12. Perusal of the impugned order (p.-1) passed by the Commissioner indicates that he has proceeded on the reasons: (i) close relatives of President ant members of Selection Committee were appointed; (ii) there is no documentary proof that Shri Bhagwat Prasad Shukla had handed over charge to ADI and did not participate in the selection process as his daughters Sunita and Sulochana and daughter-in-law Champa Shukla were appointed; (iii) relatives of Kanchan Soni and Atulesh Singh who were the members of Selection Committee, were also appointed; (iv) provision of reservation was not adhered to; (v) Collector had remitted the matter without quashment of the selection list. It was not permissible to remit the matter to Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, without quashing selection list. 13. First three reasons to quash the entire selection list relate exclusively to the appointment of respondents No.8 to 13 in WP (S) No. 5181/2005, not to any other person. Their case was severable from others. 14. Fourth reason given is that provision of reservation was not followed. There is absolutely no discussion made by the Commissioner how the provision of reservation was violated. There is total non-application of mind by the Commissioner while arriving at a conclusion without any reason and discussing the matter for quashment of selection list of 296 persons appointed way back before 7 years, their services were also confirmed on completion of probation period. Thus, it is clear that the Commissioner has totally failed to decide the matter in objective manner. 15. The fifth and the last reason employed is that the Collector has remitted the matter, as such, selection list ought to have been quashed. Thus, it is clear that the Commissioner has totally failed to decide the matter in objective manner. 15. The fifth and the last reason employed is that the Collector has remitted the matter, as such, selection list ought to have been quashed. I find that the fifth and last reason given by the Commissioner to cancel the entire selection list is absolutely impermissible and illegal. The Collector had given the finding only with respect to illegalities in the appointment of six persons who were relations, i.e., respondents No.8 to 13 in WP (S) No.5181/2005. It was not found by the Collector that the entire selection list stood vitiated. Without giving a finding that the entire selection list was vitiated, it was not open to the Commissioner to set aside the entire selection. On the basis of reasoning employed by the Collector and the Commissioner, the cancellation of entire selection list cannot be said to he permissible and in accordance with law. 16. In case there were any illegalities in the appointment of the respondents No.8 to 13 and if they were favoured by the respondents No.5 to 7, at the most appointment of respondents No. 8 to 13 could have been set aside, not of all the incumbents. Case was remitted to give opportunity of hearing to respondents No.8 to 13 as they were affected parties. 17. In Union of India and ors. v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and another [ AIR 2003 SC 4222 ] the apex Court has laid down that if case of certain incumbents who were favoured is severable, quashment of entire selection is unreasonable: "6. On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in the light of the materials brought on record, including the relevant portions of the report said to have been submitted by the Special Committee constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the irregularities, if any, in the selection of candidates, filed on our directions -- which report itself seems to have been also produced for the perusal of the High Court, there appears. to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractice as such in the process of written examination -- either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractice as such in the process of written examination -- either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions on loud speaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any relevance in understanding them or answering them, there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. The posting of invigilators for every ten candidates would belie any such assumptions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of valuation of answer sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and reviewed situation by re-evaluating the answer sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment, there was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of all-pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or other of irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be in any manner vitiated for anyone or other reasons. Applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with respect to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going further than what was strictly and reasonably required to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational." I find that case of respondents No.8 to 13 was severable in case favour was given to them, hence, cancellation of entire selection is bad in law. 18. It is settled law that illegalities and irregularities committed in making selection have to be scrutinized in each case. In the instant case, the appointments were made in the year 1998. There was direction to hear the affected parties. Only respondents No.4 to 14 were parties in the appeal, after several years quashment of entire selection cannot be said to be proper, that too without due application of mind without finding any fault in the appointment of other candidates except the relatives of Selection Committee. 19. It is a case where as per the case set up by the respondent No. 14 Ms. Shakuntala Singh, she had at a later stage challenged the appointment of relatives of members of Selection Committee. This Court, in the previous writ petition directed that opportunity of hearing be given to all respondents in the appeal before the Collector. Challenge was confined to respondents No.8 to 13 whose selection was set aside as per initial order (P-5) passed by Collector on 20.10.2000. No revision was preferred by Ms. Shakuntala Singh before Commissioner as against order (P-5) for setting aside entire selection process. Present petitioners were even not arrayed as respondents before the Collector. Challenge was confined to respondents No.8 to 13 whose selection was set aside as per initial order (P-5) passed by Collector on 20.10.2000. No revision was preferred by Ms. Shakuntala Singh before Commissioner as against order (P-5) for setting aside entire selection process. Present petitioners were even not arrayed as respondents before the Collector. Considering order (P-5) passed earlier and the finding recorded by the Collector in order (P-8), I find no hesitation to come to the conclusion that quashment of the entire selection list by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, as per order (P-l) is bad in law and impermissible. 20. Consequently, the impugned order (P-1) passed by the Commissioner is set aside. Revision be decided afresh in the light of the direction made in this petition. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred in these writ petitions.