Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri A. K. Goel, for the petitioner, Sri Ram Kirti Singh for respondent No. 2, Dr. Ram Singh for respondent No. 6 and learned standing counsel representing the State authorities have been heard.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on various grounds, namely : (i) so far as Km. Uma Sharma respondent No. 6 is concerned, she has absolutely no right or any locus standi to resist the petitioner's claim as her participation in the proceedings against the entitlement of the petitioner is clearly barred by principle of res judicata. It has been pointed out that in the writ petition filed by respondent No. 6 (Writ Petition No. 20789 of 1999), she claimed for her regularization on the post in question and at the same time, selection of the present petitioner by the board and the recommendation in her favour for the post of Principal in the present college, but this Court has rejected the claim of Km. Uma Sharma and therefore, learned counsel submits that respondent No. 6 is not to be heard. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the decision in AIR 1977 SC 1680, (ii) it was then contended that the respondent No. 2 after completing selection process for the post in question, had become functus officio and therefore, it has no Jurisdiction to cancel the selection in favour of the petitioner, specially in view of the fact that it has already been implemented and given effect as pursuant to the recommendation by the board, the management issued the appointment letter and the petitioner joined and after completion of period of probation satisfactorily her services too was confirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that review by respondent No. 2 after its recommendation was acted upon and that had seal of this Court also, cannot be said to be lawful, (iii) It was then contended that entire action of the respondents besides being illegal and without jurisdiction is also in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel points out that so far as report as has been submitted by the Joint Director of Education is concerned, which is the sole basis for taking impugned action against the petitioner is admittedly ex parte as before submitting the report, the petitioner was never given any notice or opportunity and in fact even the copy of complaint was never supplied to her either at the stage of submission of enquiry report on 7.7.2001 or even when the petitioner asked copy of the same vide her reply dated 29.11.2001. It has been further pointed out that on 28.2.2001, even the board without hearing and giving opportunity to the petitioner has recommended the Joint Director of Education about cancellation of the petitioner's selection and thus the decision which was to be taken against the petitioner, was already finalised and it is only thereafter a notice was given and after getting the petitioner's reply on 29.11.2001 without affording any further opportunity, final confirmation of the impugned action vide order dated 10.1.2002, came into existence. Learned counsel submits that this all goes to show complete non-application of mind by the authorities and lack of adequate opportunity to the petitioner as well. Lastly, it was contended that the action of the respondents besides being illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of principle of natural justice is also mala fide, which is quite apparent and is established from own records of the respondents. Learned counsel submits that now it is not a matter of dispute that the complaint was filed by the M.L.C., addressed to the concerned Minister and it is on the direction of the concerned Minister, the educational machinery came in motion. The enquiry report submitted by the Joint Director of Education dated 7.7.2001, (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), the letter written by the board dated 28.8.2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) to the Joint Director of Education to cancel the selection and the final order of the board dated 10.1.2002 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) all goes to indicate that at the bottom of their report/orders, it is mentioned that copy is being furnished/sent to the P. S. of the Minister concerned for his information and perusal. In view of this fact, learned counsel submits that Inference can be drawn by this Court that entire action was just to satisfy the dictates of the Minister concerned.