Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 693 (MP)

Seema Mishra v. State of M. P.

2006-05-11

A.M.NAIK

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being disposed of in the following manner: The mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Shyambala Mishra was an Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department of Madhya Pradesh. Her death occurred during the service period and the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground vide order dated 19.8.1994 contained in Annexure A-I. Petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher. After completion of formalities, she was allowed to join on 25.8.1994 and was taken on duty. Thereafter, she started discharging duties on the said post. An order of appointment dated 1.9.1994 contained in Annexure A-4 was issued by the Director of Public Instructions wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner should appear before the Deputy Director, Mandla. Since the petitioner was already appointed by an earlier order of the Dy. Director dated 19.8.1994, the order contained in Annexure A-4 was not acted upon. However, the petitioner received the impugned order contained in Annexure A-5 dated 19.7.1995 terminating thereby her services. Another order of the same date and like anture contained in Annexure A-6 was also issued stating therein that the appointment of the petitioner being illegal, has been cancelled. 2. Shri Ramesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders contained in Annexure A-5 and A-6 are bad in law since the same have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Shri V.P. Nema, learned Government Advocate, supported the impugned orders. However, in the absence of return, learned Dy. Government Advocate is not in a position to refute the factual averments made in the writ petition. 4. After considering the submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders contained in Annexure P-5 and P-6 are not sustainable in law for a simple solitary reason that they are obviously detrimental t the petitioner and it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing such orders. I may successfully refer to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University and others [ AIR 1998 SC 3261 ]. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned orders contained in Annexure A-5 and A-6 are hereby quashed and the petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits. I may successfully refer to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Basudeo Tiwari v. Sido Kanhu University and others [ AIR 1998 SC 3261 ]. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned orders contained in Annexure A-5 and A-6 are hereby quashed and the petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.