Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 388 (RAJ)

Jethee Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2016-03-08

AJAY RASTOGI, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Instant intra-court appeal has been preferred against order of the ld. Single Judge impugned dated 05.11.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case which can be culled out from the record are that the appellant was appointed through placement agency known as Bhatnagar Placement and Computer Agency, Jalore on 31.06.2007. Her services came to be terminated w.e.f. 21.10.2011 and that came to be challenged in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1154/2011 and the Single Bench of this court vide order dated 12.02.2014 dismissed the writ petition with direction to the appellant to approach the District Collector, Barmer who had passed the order dated 21.10.2011 on appropriate representation and the inquiry report on which for the alleged misconduct a finding was recorded of her exoneration and the Single Bench expected from the District Collector to decide her representation expeditiously after providing an opportunity of hearing to her with liberty to the appellant to avail remedy which the law permits to her, if any adverse order is passed by the authority. 3. Pursuant to the directions of the ld. Single Bench of this court, representation was filed by the petitioner-appellant before the District Collector, Barmer and after due appreciation of material on record, the authority rejected her representation vide order dated 08.08.2014. 4. The main thrust of submission of counsel for appellant before the ld.Single Judge as well as before this court is that the opportunity of hearing has not been afforded for the alleged misconduct to her. It was also submitted that although she was engaged through the placement agency but her services were terminated in contravention of law and the order of the ld. Single Judge dated 12.02.2014 confirming the order of termination passed by the District Collector, Barmer is without due appreciation of the material on record and contrary to the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the Preliminary Enquiry and in these facts and circumstances rejection of her representation could not be said to be valid and in accordance with due process of law. 5. It is not the case of the appellant that she was selected after adopting the procedure prescribed by law and in conformity with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution and indisputably engagement through private placement agency would not confer any right in her favour. 5. It is not the case of the appellant that she was selected after adopting the procedure prescribed by law and in conformity with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution and indisputably engagement through private placement agency would not confer any right in her favour. The District Collector, Barmer while examining the representation submitted by the appellant in compliance of order of the ld. Single Judge in the earlier proceedings took note of the material available and so also what is being observed by the Enquiry Officer in its report and recorded his prima facie view that in the enquiry conducted by the Additional District Projector Convener of SSA, Barmer the appellant is guilty for alleged misbehaviour with the girls, irregularities and indiscipline in her working. The report of the District Collector has been taken note of by the ld.Single Judge under order impugned and observed that if an opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the appellant and held guilty for the alleged misbehaviour with the students/girls, no error was committed in the decision making process by the authority in terminating her services. 6. After we have heard counsel for the parties and gone through order of the ld. Single Judge dated 05.11.2014, we do not find any error being committed by the ld.Single Judge in passing the order impugned which may call for our interference. 7. Consequently, the instant intra-court appeal is devoid of merit, according stands dismissed.