Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2021
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 610 of 2021
Ranjeet Kumar, S/o Binod Mandal, age about 31 years, resident of Village Ward
No.11, Post Office Road, Chaprashi Tola, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda, District Godda
. ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi.
3. The Mission Director, National Health Mission, State RCH Office, GVI
Campus, Tata Road, Namkum, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda.
5. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda,
District Godda.
6. The District Surveillance Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda.
... ... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
------
For Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Deepak Kr. Prasad, Advocate
For Resps.-State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III
----------
-----------
08/ 15.07.2021 Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the Memo No.161 dated
02.02.2021 (Annexure-8) issued by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Godda and subsequent order contained in Memo No.16 dated 03.02.2021 issued by the District Surveillance Officer, Godda whereby the service of petitioner as District Data Manager, IDSP, Godda was terminated without following the procedures of law. Further prayer has been made for payment of honorarium for the month of January, 2021 and 2 days of salary in the month of February, 2021 and payment of consequential benefits after quashment of the order of termination.
The case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. Petitioner was earlier posted as Block Data Manager (BDM) from 11.02.2012 to 25.06.2020 at Referral Hospital, Mahagama, Godda, and experience certificate to that effect was also issued by the InCharge Medical Officer. Pursuant to an advertisement flouted by office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Godda published on the District Website as also on Notice Board, 2 petitioner having requisites qualifications applied for the post of District Data Manager, IDSP Godda for consideration of his candidature for further recruitment process.
Altogether seven candidates including the petitioner applied for the said post and thereafter comparative list was prepared by the District Selection Committee after following due process of law, in which name of the petitioner was at Sl. No.1. A three man committee was constituted for the purpose of taking interview of the candidates. On being found eligible in all respect, the petitioner was finally selected by the District Selection Committee on 21.06.2020 for the post of District Data Manager, IDSP, Godda and name of two other persons were kept in the waiting list and petitioner was appointed to the post of District Data Manager, IDSP, Godda, vide Memo No.1318 dated 06.07.2020. Petitioner after his appointment was working sincerely and was being paid honorarium and a certificate to that effect was also issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda as well as Superintendent of Police, Godda. It is specific case of the petitioner that all of a sudden without issuing any show cause notice and following the cardinal principle of natural justice, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide Memo No.161 dated 02.02.2021 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Godda. The said order of termination was communicated vide Memo No.16 dated 03.02.2021 to the petitioner. The order of termination has been assailed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
Mrs. Ritu Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the livelihood of the petitioner has been taken away and order of termination has been issued dehors the rules in complete violation of the cardinal principle of natural justice. Learned counsel further argues that even without issuance of show cause notice, the livelihood of the petitioner has been snatched away. Placing heavy reliance in the case of Copper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [Civil Rev. No.49 of 2017], learned counsel submits that "Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence". Aggrieved by the order of termination the petitioner had represented before the authorities to withdraw the order of termination as one even one month notice prior to passing of termination order was not issued to him as per Clause-4 of the appointment letter. It is also argued that even honorarium of the petitioner is not paid to him. It has been further argued that petitioner was appointed following the due procedures and only on a complain made by a local political person, the services of the petitioner has been terminated. Even the enquiry was made behind the back of the petitioner and no reasons have been assigned in the order of termination and on the basis of aforesaid procedural latches and malafied intention, the order of termination is fit to be quashed and set aside.
Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel representing the State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that petitioner has 3 no right to continue in the service as appointment itself was contractual. Learned counsel further argues that entire selection process was under cloud and therefore there was no requirement of notice. The prevailing rules were followed by the Deputy Commissioner and as the process of recruitment was dehors the rules, the order of termination was passed which is fully justified. Learned counsel further argues that the Respondents-State has come out with a fresh advertisement and petitioner had applied for the same and hence the writ petition itself has become infrectuous and on this score itself the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Placing heavy reliance in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146, learned counsel submits that requirement of cardinal principle of natural justice is not mandatory and in the instant case the same is not attracted.
Petitioner has also fill up the form pursuant to fresh advertisement and his candidature shall be considered in accordance with law.
Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, this court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly petitioner was appointed following due procedures and not a chit of paper has been brought on record to show that the appointment was dehors the rule. It was only after complain made by the local MLA, enquiry was held that too behind the back of the petitioner holding therein that without following the procedure, the appointment was made dehors the rules and as such without following the cardinal principles of natural justice the services of the petitioner was terminated. Even the enquiry report is not brought on record neither a copy of the same was ever served to the petitioner. The petitioner was not a party to the said enquiry. Admittedly contractual appointment come to an end ones the contract is over but aggrieved person has right to defend the same. The respondents have not even followed their own terms and conditions particularly Clause-4 of the appointment letter. The law is well settled that even in case of contractual appointments, the employees have right to be heard before their services are put to an end. The livelihood of employee cannot be snatched away without following the due procedure of law. Any order visiting with civil and evil consequences must be passed after following the principle of natural justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. O. Chakradhar; (2002) 3 SCC 146; at para-8 has held thus;
"8 The nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is so widespread and all- pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also 4 has its relevance."
The case in hand is based on different facts as in the instant case, only three persons were shortlisted and petitioner being the highest scorer was appointed. It was not a case that a large number of candidates were there so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully appointed. In the instant case cancellation of entire selection process is not justified.
In view of the aforesaid rules and observations and guidelines the impugned order dated 02.02.2021 is not tenable in the eyes of law and hence is hereby quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner has already applied pursuant to fresh advertisement issued by the respondents, instead of giving direction of reinstatement, it is proper to direct respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner afresh without prejudiced to the order of termination.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Rohit/-