Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 975 (HP)

Upender Verma v. State of H. P.

2012-12-13

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2012
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral): The complaint is that the petitioner, duly appointed by the PTA Committee, Government Middle School, Olwa, District Kullu vide order of appointment dated 26.10.2006, Annexure P-3 and having resumed duties vide joining report dated 27.10.2006, Annexure P-4, has been removed illegally from service vide a non-speaking order dated 24.9.2008, Annexure P-6 by the 3rd respondent. Consequently, the Headmaster of the school, respondent No.4 discontinued the services of the petitioner on and with effect from 3.10.2008 vide order Annexure P-7. The earlier writ petition bearing No.2024 of 2008 preferred in this Court against the order of his removal from service was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the notification dated 27.5.2008, Annexure P-9 pursuant to which some inquiry was conducted in the matter on the complaint of respondent No.5 and the petitioner removed from service. The order passed in the previous writ petition, dated 24.10.2008 is Annexure P-10. Consequent upon withdrawal of the earlier writ petition, he preferred an appeal vide Annexure P-11 to the 2nd respondent. The said respondent, however, dismissed the same vide order dated 21.3.2009 (Annexure P-12), impugned in this writ petition. 2. In reply to the writ petition, the stand of the respondent-State, in a nutshell, is that the selection of the petitioner was cancelled by the 3rd respondent after conducting an inquiry in accordance with the guidelines issued by the respondent-State vide notification No.EDN-A-Kha(7)3/2006 dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P-9). Also that the matter was considered in the light of directions of this Court in CWP No.525/2009 titled Ravinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and CWP No.2632/2009 titled Koyal KumarVs. State of H.P. and after affording due opportunity of being heard, the appointment of petitioner was not found in order, hence cancelled. 3. Having gone through the record and the submissions made on both sides, the only question needs consideration is as to whether the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner as Drawing Master (PTA) is legally and factually sustainable or not. 4. The petitioner admittedly made an application for appointment as Drawing Master (PTA) in Government Middle School, Olwa. He alongwith other candidates was considered by the selection Committee comprising President and Secretary, Parents-Teachers Association, Government Middle School, Olwa and one subject specialist, i.e. Drawing Master, Government Senior Secondary School, Dalash. 4. The petitioner admittedly made an application for appointment as Drawing Master (PTA) in Government Middle School, Olwa. He alongwith other candidates was considered by the selection Committee comprising President and Secretary, Parents-Teachers Association, Government Middle School, Olwa and one subject specialist, i.e. Drawing Master, Government Senior Secondary School, Dalash. He having secured more marks as compared to another candidate, Sushil Kumar as is apparent from the award list, Annexure P-8, was given the offer of appointment. Not only this, but after joining duties by the petitioner, the Headmaster of the school endorsed the joining report of the petitioner amongst others to Deputy Director, Education (Elementary), Kullu. The endorsement to this effect is made on Annexure P-4 itself. The further information about the appointment of the petitioner was also forwarded to the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Kullu vide Annexure P-5. The information at Sr. No.iv of this document reveals that the Government has released the grant-in-aid amounting to Rs.42735/- for the period from 27.10.2006 to 30.11.2007. The petitioner, thus, continued discharging his duties as Drawing Master in the school. Subsequently, in view of there being complaints qua the mode of selection of PTA teachers, the respondent-State had decided to constitute committees to enquire into the cases of irregular appointments of the teachers by the PTA. The decision so taken was notified vide notification dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P-9). The petitioner who was appointed as PTA teacher well before the issuance of the notification Annexure P-9, was removed from service vide order Annexure P-6 by the 3rd respondent, most probably, on the complaint made by respondent No.5. This order is innocuous and non-speaking. The order seems to have been issued behind the back of the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of being heard. The stand of the respondent-State that the decision to cancel the appointment of petitioner has been taken after holding inquiry in accordance with the notification dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P-9), is without any substance and contrary to the settled legal principle that in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed long back on 26.10.2006, the decision taken by the Government vide notification dated 27.5.2008 could have been made applicable prospectively. The inquiry however could have been conducted qua the manner the petitioner has been appointed as PTA teacher and procedure followed by the selection Committee independent to the decision of the respondent-State taken vide notification Annexure P-9. Although it has been stated that the inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was associated before cancellation of his appointment, however, no record in this respect is placed on record. The order Annexure P-12, passed by the 2nd respondent in the appeal preferred by the petitioner is also not reasoned order and rather cryptic. The said respondent has also based the findings on the notification dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P-9). This Court is not satisfied with the approach of the respondents in this matter and the manner in which the petitioner has been removed from service after about two years of his joining duties. 5. Consequently, in view of the above observations, the impugned order Annexure P-12 passed by the 2nd respondent in an appeal preferred by the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, orders dated 24.9.2008 and 3.10.2008, Annexures P-6 and P-7 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be removed are also quashed and set aside. The respondents, however, are at liberty to hold fresh inquiry qua the allegations raised by respondent No.5 against the appointment of the petitioner as Drawing Master (PTA) in accordance with law and after associating the petitioner and the 5th respondent both. 6. In the light of above observations and the law laid down by this Court in Ravinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Koyal Kumar Vs. State of H.P., supra, the respondents are directed to complete the inquiry within six months from today. In the meanwhile, the existing arrangement, i.e. appointment of petitioner as Drawing Master (PTA) in Government Middle School, Olwa, District Kullu shall continue. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.