Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 914 (RAJ)

Renu Kumari v. State of Rajasthan

2019-03-26

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 05.03.2019 (Annex.6) and 07.03.2019 (Part of Annex.6), whereby services of the petitioner as Teacher Gr. III (Level-I) has been cancelled and consequential order has been passed, respectively. 2. It is, inter-alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have passed the order Annex.6 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner did not suppress any material from the respondents at the time of appointment and therefore, for the reason as indicated in the order impugned, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the issue pertaining to candidature of the petitioner as a reserved category candidate stands concluded by the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttrakhand & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 8425/2013, decided on 01.11.2018, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court. However, it is not denied that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order dated 05.03.2019. 4. In the overall circumstances of the case, wherein violation of principles of natural justice are writ large and in the circumstances of the case, wherein the respondents have not even issued a show cause notice to the petitioner before passing of the order terminating the services of the petitioner, which involve civil consequences, the orders cannot be sustained. 5. So far as reliance placed on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra) by the respondents is concerned, once the petitioner is issued a show cause notice and a response is given by her, thereafter the respondents can take a view on the said aspect. Merely by relying on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court without issuing notice, the order impugned could not have been passed. 6. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The orders dated 05.03.2019 (Annex.6) and 07.03.2019 (Part of Annex.6) are quashed and set-aside leaving it open for the respondents to take action, if so advised, in accordance with law as noticed herein-before.