Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11] It is further submitted that, the Respondent No. 3 did not challenge the seniority list and same attained the finality.

The Respondent No.3 did not challenge the promotion by way of filing an Appeal, though appeal is provided. It is submitted that, the Respondent No.3 did file a representation and on the said representation, without notice to the petitioner, the petitioner is demoted to the original post and the Respondent No.3 is appointed on promotional post. It is submitted that, the Committee appointed was not authorized to demote the Petitioner to the original post. The said action of the Committee was illegal, and therefore, on the said ground alone, the appointment of the Respondent No.3 as an Agricultural Officer of Promotion deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that, the petitioner filed a representation on 14th March, 2013 before the Committee, however, the petitioner's representation was not considered. The Petitioner was not called for hearing, and therefore, there is 6141.2013 WP.odt utter violation of the principles of natural justice while cancelling the appointment of the Petitioner as an Agricultural Officer and demoted her to the original post. It is submitted that, if at all, the Respondent No.3 was aggrieved by the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of the Agricultural Officer, the Respondent No.3 ought to have filed the Appeal. It is further submitted that, the Chief Executive Officer alone cannot issue the order.

1. AIR 1961 SC 1506 6141.2013 WP.odt prejudicial to the writ petitioner has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and could, therefore, be treated as void or non est. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the present Petition is maintainable since in the present case there is violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner is demoted to her original post without giving any notice or hearing and secondly, the Committee constituted had no jurisdiction to demote the petitioner to the original post. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of Mariamma Roy Vs. Indian Bank & others2 and submits that, when natural justice is denied, even if an alternative remedy is available, a writ petition is maintainable and High Court cannot dismiss the same without hearing the issue of violation of natural justice. For the same preposition, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pressed into service exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of Satwati Deswal Vs. State of Haryana and others3.

affidavit filed by the Petitioner and the Judgments cited across the bar by the counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

It is not in dispute that, the Respondent No.3 instead of challenging the appointment of the Petitioner on promotional post i.e. Agricultural Officer before the Appellate Authority, filed a representation and on the basis of the said representation, the Committee was constituted and the said Committee cancelled the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of the Agricultural Officer and demoted her to original post, without giving notice to the petitioner and without considering the representation given by the Petitioner in breach / violation of the principles of natural justice. There is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that, the 6141.2013 WP.odt Committee which was constituted, had no authority or jurisdiction to pass an order of demotion of the petitioner.

Since there is violation of principles of natural justice, we are inclined to entertain this Petition.

18] It is undisputed position that, the respondents proceeded to cancel the appointment of the Petitioner as an Agricultural Officer and demoted the petitioner to her original post without taking into consideration her representation or without adhering to the principles of natural justice. In our opinion, it was incumbent upon the respondents at least to consider the representation of the Petitioner and then take appropriate decision. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not stated in their reply that, 6141.2013 WP.odt the Respondent No.1 had jurisdiction - power to demote the Petitioner on the original post. It appears that, the respondents, while cancelling the appointment of the Petitioner on promotional post and demoting her on the original post, did not take into consideration that, the petitioner was appointed as an Agriculture Officer on the basis of the recommendation of DPC. It appears that, while passing the impugned order of demotion of the petitioner to the original post, the respondent No.1 has not adhered to the relevant Rules. In all fairness, the respondent No.1 ought to have adhered to the relevant Rules and principles of natural justice and only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, could have taken appropriate decision. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, total 14 posts of Officers are available in the Zilla Parishad and out of 14 posts, the Petitioner was the only Lady Agriculture Officer, and therefore, while passing the impugned order, the Respondent ought to have kept the said aspect in mind.