Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Ratna Devi And 13 Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 4 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1992(1)WLC765, 1993WLN(UC)321
JUDGMENT B.R. Arora, J.
1. These fourteen writ petitions raise a common question of law and facts and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners were appointed as Sweepers in the Municipal Board, Nokha, vide Resolution dated 6.3.1993. Some irregularities were pointed-out by the Executive Officer in the appointments given to the petitioners and, therefore, the State Government, vide order dated 10.3.93, cancelled the appointment of the petitioners on the posts of Sweeper Bhisti. It is against this order dated 10.3.93, that the petitioners have preferred these fourteen writ petitions.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the order Annexure. l, while giving appointments to the petitioners, no condition was imposed and the appointments of the petitioners were for a period of six months and, therefore, before the expiry of the period of six months and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the orders of appointment cannot be cancelled. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the State Government and submitted that one Mr. Babu Lal Jain was given the charge of the post of the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nokha, as the post fell vacant on account of suspension of the Chairman Mr. K.L. Jhanwar, and within a period of six days of his appointment, he gave appointments to these eighteen persons. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that before giving appointments to the petitioners, the procedure provided under the Rules was not followed and the appointments were given in undue haste. They have further submitted that the applications for seeking appointments were submitted by twelve persons on 6.3.93 and by four persons on 5.3.93, and therefore, there was no question of calling the meeting of the Selection Committee for giving appointments to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the respondents have further submitted that the appointments were given in clear violation of the Rules and, therefore, the Court is not expected to affirm the illegal orders giving appointments.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
5. It is not in dispute that no notice before passing the order Annexure. 2 was given by the respondents to the petitioners and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. The petitioners were given appointments on 6.3.93, and they joined the duties on that very day. The appointments were given for a period of six months and if prior to that period the respondents wanted to remove the petitioners from service on the ground that the orders of appointment were illegal then atleast some opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioners. The order Annexure. 2 has been passed in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice. Though the order Annexure. 2 has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners but the facts on record show that while giving appointments to the petitioners, the due process of selection of the candidates for giving them appointment was not adopted and the Rules were not followed. Even the Notification inviting applications for giving appointments, was not published in any of the news-papers. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the notices were not published in the news-paper but it was affixed on the Notice Board of the Municipal Board and at some conspicuous places in the town. These facts have been denied by the respondents. The publication of the Notification by affixing at Notice Board of the Municipal Board or other conspicuous places in the town does not stand to reason and is not proved because if some Notification had been published inviting applications for appointment then some applications should have been received by the Municipal Board, but only few applications were received upto March 5, 1993, and till the Chairman called the meeting of the Appointing Committee. The Twelve applications were received on 6.3.93, and they were scrutinized and considered on the same day, the result of the selection was declared on that very day and even the appointment orders were issued on the same day and on the same day the petitioners joined their services. All these speak something fishy. Normally, in a day, all these proceedings could not have taken place.
6. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in such a matter to exercise the discretionary power vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because allowing these writ petitions will result in restoring the illegal orders passed by the Chairman Mr. Babu Lal giving appointments to the petitioners.
7. I, therefore, do not find any merit in these fourteen writ petitions and the same are dismissed. However, it is observed that in future if appointments on the posts of Sweeper on temporary, ad-hoc or permanent basis, then the case of the petitioners under Section 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, may be considered in accordance with the longevity of their service.