Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 957 (JHR)

Nitu Pandit v. State of Jharkhand

2017-06-19

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashing of the appointment letter as well as joining of the respondent no. 7 as Cluster Coordinator at Upgraded Middle School, Purnadih, P.S. Tundi Dist. Dhanbad. Factual Matrix. 2. In view of the notice regarding appointment for the post of Cluster Coordinator for the Upgraded Middle School, Purnadih a meeting was held on 29.6.2007 which was attended by the members of the 16 Mata Samiti for the appointment to the post of Cluster Coordinator in the Upgraded Middle School, Purnadih. The petitioner Nitu Pandit was unanimously selected by all the members vide order dated 29.06.2007 (Anexure-2). A resolution dated 29.06.2007 was sent to the Competent authorities in pursuance to the letter no. 19.9.2007. In view of resolution, the petitioner joined to the said post on 20.9.2007. Information with regard to joining of the petitioner was sent to all the competent authorities of the department. In compliance to the order as contained in letter dated 19.09.2007 the Headmaster Shri Matru Hembram furnished all the articles along with its list required in the NPEGL work to the petitioner. Total value of the articles, handed over to the petitioner, worth Rs. 30,000/- and used on 24.09.2007. Since her joining i.e. 20.09.2007, the petitioner is working as the Cluster Coordinator to the satisfaction of all the Competent authorities without a single adverse remark. It is further stated that on 22.10.2007 a General Assembly was held in which none of the Mata Samiti Member was present except one, and respondent no. 7 was selected for the same post in the same school in which the petitioner was posted and working. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred challenging the order of appointment of the respondent no.7. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed following the due procedure of law regarding appointment of Cluster Coordinator. Mr. Tiwari further argues that the petitioner was neither made a party in the selection process nor she ever participated and without giving any notice and any opportunity of being heard, this impugned order has been passed. It has been done illegally and arbitrarily which does not have legs to stand in the eyes of law. Mr. Mr. Tiwari further argues that the petitioner was neither made a party in the selection process nor she ever participated and without giving any notice and any opportunity of being heard, this impugned order has been passed. It has been done illegally and arbitrarily which does not have legs to stand in the eyes of law. Mr. Tiwari further argues that on inquiry the petitioner came to know that on the telephonic message the aforesaid process of selection was held by the respondent no.8 and 9. Learned counsel further submits that even those persons were invited for the meeting who were not the members of Mata Samiti. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection of respondent no.7 as Cluster Coordinator was not in accordance with law and in view of the fact that every process of appointment was done behind the back and she was selected as a Cluster Coordinator without following the procedure of law. In view of that selection of respondent no.7 is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and without following the principle of natural justice. 4. Mr. Kaustav Roy, JC to Sr. SC III, submits that counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 to 10. Referring to the several paragraphs of the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the State submits that the selection of the respondent no.7 was in accordance with law as the post was made for reserve category and respondent no. 7 belongs to reserve category and the petitioner who was selected earlier, belongs to OBC category. Learned counsel for the respondents also draws the attention of the Court towards counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos.5 to 10 and submits that the petitioner participated in the said process of selection and as such her claim that she was not given opportunity of hearing is not tenable in the eyes of law. 5. Going through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the stand of the respondents is not well founded. In view of the fact that contrary statement has been given by the D.S.E. in his counter affidavit as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.7. 5. Going through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the stand of the respondents is not well founded. In view of the fact that contrary statement has been given by the D.S.E. in his counter affidavit as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.7. It is a specific stands of the petitioner that the second general assembly meeting was held for appointment to post of cluster coordinator is violative of the provisions of law and principle of natural justice, which has not been controverted by the D.S.E. The stand of the respondent nos. 5 to 10 seems to be misleading. Taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed by the D.S.E. herself, it seems that in order to help the respondent no.7 this counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos. 5 to 10 which shows that the petitioner appeared in the said meeting. 6. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that before passing the order of selection of the respondent no.7 due notice should have been given to the petitioner and an opportunity of being heard should be given to her before passing any order of selection/appointment. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the respondent no.3, D.S.E. vide Annexure 10 is not tenable. Resultantly, the order dated 27.10.2007 (Annexure10) stands quashed and set aside. 7. The Deputy Commissioner of Dhanbad is directed to pass a fresh order for selection/appointment on the post of Cluster Coordinator after issuance of fresh notice to both the parties and also after affording them opportunity of hearing. 8. Needless to say that as the petitioner was appointed by following the due procedure of law and there is no specific assertions neither any circular or guidelines brought on record to show that the post was reserved for scheduled tribes. If the petitioner is found fit for appointment, the appointment letter should be issued to the petitioner within a period of one month after receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents take an adverse view the same may be communicated to the either parties by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.