Patna High Court - Orders
I. T. I. Atithi Anudeshak Sangh & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 July, 2018
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10019 of 2018
======================================================
I. T. I. Atithi Anudeshak Sangh & Anr
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghwendra Kumar- SC22
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 09-07-2018This writ application will be confined to petitioner no.2 only.
The petitioner no.1 has been shown to be association of I.T.I. Atithi Anudeshak Sangh, Bihar, Patna through President and the petitioner no.2 is an individual person who has been appointed as a Guest Instructor.
An advertisement was published for the appointment of Guest Instructor / Part Time Instructor for Government Industrial Training Institutes under the Labor Resources Department and, in pursuance thereof, the petitioner no.2 and other similarly situated persons have applied for those posts, after due process of selection, the persons were appointed and, accordingly, joined at the respective places.
On receipt of the different complaints, the authority, vide order no. 949 dated 11.5.2018, canceled their appointments wherein it has been mentioned that several complaints were Patna High Court CWJC No.10019 of 2018(4) dt.09-07-2018 2/3 considered, taking cognizance of those complaints about the manner and method adopted for selection, the appointments were canceled with immediate effect.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have mentioned a vague statement about irregularity, what irregularity has been committed in the selection process has not been mentioned either in this letter or there is any record reflecting nature of irregularity committed in the matter of selection.
Any complaint on receipt of irregularity cannot be a basis for taking away the right of livelihood unless it is followed by due enquiry and sufficient material is collected showing irregularity committed by them. Inasmuch as, it is also required that when they have taken a decision for withdrawal of the selection, it is the minimum requirement to first give notice and after receiving their objection, the Authority could have formed such opinion but, here, in this case, such process has not been adopted.
Learned counsel for the State has very fairly submitted that this aspect has not been dealt with in the counter affidavit and he will take instruction from the Department to the manner they have arrived to a conclusion of Patna High Court CWJC No.10019 of 2018(4) dt.09-07-2018 3/3 irregularity and illegality committed in the selection process and he will file supplementary counter affidavit within a period of one week from today.
Let this case be listed on 16.7.2018 at the top of the list under the same heading.
If the State would fail to bring on record the basis for arriving to such a conclusion, this Court will presume that the authority has arrived to the conclusion in the ipsi dixit manner without any material fact.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/-
U