Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Shankar Tiwari & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. And Ors. on 30 July, 2015
1 W.P. No.2832 of 2005
W.P. No. 2832 of 2005
W.P. No. 870 of 2005
W.P. No. 2495 of 2005
W.P. No. 3480 of 2005
30.07.2015
Shri S.D. Mishra, D.S. Thakur, Shri R.K. Thakur, Shri Manikant
Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri P.K. Pandey, learned Govt. Adv for respondent-State.
All the connected petitions have been filed against the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and Collector.
The facts of the case are that Janpad Panchyat, Malthon, district Sagar invited applications for appointments to the posts of Contract Teachers Class-II and Class-III. After selection certain persons including the petitioners were appointed on the posts of Contract Teachers. Three persons namely Jagdish, Brijlal and Kashiram who were not selected, filed an appeal before the Collector questioning the selection and appointment of the petitioners. They pleaded that there were irregularities in the selection process. The office bearer of the Janpad Panchyat appointed their relatives on the aforesaid posts and there were also irregularities in the interview. In the aforesaid appeal, the petitioners were not party.
The Collector after holding that there were irregularities in the process of selection cancelled the selection process in regard 2 W.P. No.2832 of 2005 to appointments to the post of Class - II and Class -III Contract Teachers. Against the aforesaid order, some persons filed revision petition before the Commissioner. In the revision petition, a ground was taken that the affected persons were not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the Collector neither any notice was issued to them. They were affected party, hence order passed by the Collector was against the law. The Commissioner also did not adjudicate the aforesaid point. It has been noticed by the Commissioner that the C.E.O., Janpad Panchyat did not produce the record in regard to selection before the Collector with the observation that the selection process was vitiated on account of favourtism and illegalities, the Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Collector.
Some of the petitioners filed writ petition before this court because the Commissioner did not grant any stay. It was dismissed. Thereafter LPA was filed. It was registered as L.P.A. No. 468/2002. This court disposed of the L.P.A., vide order dated 31.10.2003 with a direction to the Commissioner to dispose of the revision and also ordered that upto the decision of the Commissioner status quo shall be maintained. Thereafter, the Commissioner dismissed the revision petition. The petitioners filed the petition before this Court. This 3 W.P. No.2832 of 2005 court granted stay. Since then the petitioners have been continuing in service.
From the facts of the case, it is clear that the petitioners were not party before the Collector in the appeal. They were necessary party because they were selected and appointed to the post of Contract Teachers, Class -II and Class -III. Before the Commissioner the petitioners had taken a plea that the order of Collector was bad in law due to non joinder of necessary parties and the petitioners had a right of hearing. The Commissioner also upheld the order of Collector.
It is well settled principle of law that any adverse order which involves civil consequence cannot be passed in violation of rule of natural justice, which requires an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, the petitioners were selected after facing proper selection. They were also appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi, Class II and Class -III. Their appointments were set aside by the Collector after holding that there were irregularities in the process of selection. The petitioners are adversely affected by the order passed by the Collector in the appeal. Hence, it was obligatory on the part of the authority to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is also a fact that the relevant record was not 4 W.P. No.2832 of 2005 produced by the CEO before the Collector in regard to selection. It was the duty of the Collector to summon record. So proper adjudication could be carried out.
In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with the following directions that the impugned order passed by the Collector dated 17.04.2002 and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 6.1.2005 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Collector to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the affected persons. The petitioners who were selected in pursuance to the selection process shall continue in service in the meanwhile.
It is hereby clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
No order as to costs.
C c as per rules.
( S.K. Gangele ) Judge bks