Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 613 (MP)

Raju Kumar Tagore v. State of M. P.

2015-06-16

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
ORDER 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India assails the order Annexure P-1 dated 23.9.2011 passed by the District Education Officer, District Sheopur and order Annexure P-2 dated 31.7.2013 passed by the Collector, District Sheopur, whereby, the services of the petitioners who are daily rated employees have been dispensed with and the said dispensation has been upheld by the Collector, District Sheopur respectively. A further prayer has been sought for reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were appointed as daily rated employees vide different orders issued on 21.6.2011 and 21.7.2011 at the different High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools functional at different places in District Sheopur. It is submitted that vide Annexure P-3 orders of engagement/appointment were issued as peon for all the petitioners pursuant to which the petitioners joined in August, 2011 vide Annexure P-4. However, the services of the petitioners were terminated vide Annexure P-1 dated 23.9.2011 issued by the District Education Officer, District Sheopur based upon the direction of the Collector, District Sheopur issued on 19.9.2011. This termination was motivated by dual reasons. First being that neither any such case was registered before grant of engagement to the petitioners in the office of Collector, District Sheopur and secondly no concurrence for the same was sought from the office of District Education Officer, District Sheopur. Undisputedly, the said termination order vide Annexure P-1 was without affording opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. 4. The above said order of termination from service was put to test by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division,Morena who vide order dated 22.5.2012 Annexure P-8 remanded the matter to the Collector for consideration after rendering the findings that neither principle of natural justice were followed before dispensing with the services of the petitioners nor any findings was rendered by the Collector as to whether the engagements made in favour of the petitioners on 21.6.2011and 21.7.2011 by the then Joint Collector who was functioning as Officiating Collector, District Sheopur were lawful and valid or not for having been issued by the incompetent authority. While remanding the matter, the Additional Commissioner, however, did not set aside the orders of termination. 5. While remanding the matter, the Additional Commissioner, however, did not set aside the orders of termination. 5. The Collector on receipt of the case on remand from the Additional Commissioner constituted an enquiry committee comprising of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sheopur, Additional Collector and Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, District Sheopur which submitted its report on 2.3.2013 which found the following illegality in the appointments of the petitioners:- (i) No advertisement was issued prior to granting engagement/ appointment to the petitioners as daily rated employees; (ii) 100 points roster was not followed; (iii) No concurrence of the District Education Officer in regard to need for appointment and availability of vacant post was taken; (iv) Due process of law for recruiting the daily rated employees was not followed; (v) The appointment orders issued in favour of the petitioners vide Annexure P-3 dated 21.6.2011 and 21.7.2011 were in-fact issued by keeping the then Additional Collector, Sheopur in dark. 6. After rendering the aforesaid findings in its report, copy of which was supplied to the counsel of the petitioners, parties were heard as it is evident by reading the penultimate paragraph of impugned order Annexure P-2. Thus it cannot be said that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned order Annexure P-2 by the Collector. The Collector not only furnished the copy of enquiry report, but also heard learned counsel for the petitioners before passing the impugned order Annexure P-2 upholding the termination of service of the petitioners. 7. As against aforesaid factual matrix available in the return, learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate before this Court that any advertisement was issued prior to offering appointment to the petitioners as daily rated employees. It has also not been demonstrated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners were called from employment exchange. Thus this Court has no hesitation to conclude that due process of law to ensure equal participation of eligible candidates available in the market before granting public employment, be it temporary/daily wages engagement, was not followed. 8. Hence, the appointments of the petitioners were rendered unlawful. 9. The State in its return has categorically submitted that no advertisement of any nature was issued prior to granting appointment to the petitioners and the entire selection process and appointments was a back door entry. 10. 8. Hence, the appointments of the petitioners were rendered unlawful. 9. The State in its return has categorically submitted that no advertisement of any nature was issued prior to granting appointment to the petitioners and the entire selection process and appointments was a back door entry. 10. Public employment be it temporary or daily wages engagement/appointment cannot be made without following due process of law which in the least obliges the competent authority to either issue a public notice or advertisement to afford equal and reasonable opportunity to the eligible candidates in the market to be considered. In the absence of following said procedure even if the appointments are made then the same cannot stand the test of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. 11. In view of above, no fault can be found with the findings rendered by the Collector, District Sheopur vide Annexure P-2 upholding the order of termination of the petitioners. No case for interference is made out under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be and is, therefore, dismissed. ................