Point of law: person adversely affected by an order has right of being heard and making representations against order, even though rules do not provide so expressly

ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition was filed questioning the impugned Order in Rc.No.G1/3097/2011, dated 11.02.2012, wherein respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner for continuing service in the post of driver on contract basis to the blood transportation by confirming the impugned Termination Order dated 25-11-2010 issued by respondent No.1.

2. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed along with Writ Petition, the facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner belongs to BC Category and he passed intermediate and also possessing heavy transport vehicle license. The petitioner was appointed as driver by respondent No.1 vide Proceedings dated 13-09-2010 on contract basis to the Blood Bank Transportation Van, Government General Hospital, Anantpur. One of the unsuccessful candidates complained that the Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner is not genuine. Taking the same into account, respondent No.1 issued Proceedings dated 25-11-2010, terminating the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Respondent No.2. On 29-11-2010, as no orders have been passed thereon by Respondent No.2, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23401 of 2011 and the same was disposed of by this Court directing respondent No.2 to pass orders upon the representation dated 29-11-2010 submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 passed Orders vide Proceedings in R.C.No.G1/3097/2011, dated 11-02-2012 and rejected the representation made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the said Counter Affidavit, it is averred by the respondents that one Sri Muralidhar Yadav, who had applied for the post of Driver and who was placed at serial No.3 in the selection list, submitted a complaint against the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted a false Experience Certificate during the selection process. Respondent No.1 after careful examination and an enquiry about the Experience Certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Tadipatri and the Assistant Director (Admn) Government Hospital, Anantapur, addressed a Letter dated 23-01-2010 about the Experience Certificate. The Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Tadipatri, has reported that the Experience Certificate produced by the petitioner is a false one. He reported that the petitioner worked as driver for his private car, but not official one, and the salary was paid from his personal amount. After calling for the explanation from the petitioner, respondent No.2 vide Proceedings in R.C.No.3097/G1/2010, dated 25-11-2010, removed the petitioner from the post of driver and the same was confirmed by respondent No.2 in his Proceedings dated 11-02-2012.

4. Heard Sri M.R. Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected as a driver on contract basis being the most eligible and suitable candidate basing on the driving performance, road sense knowledge, presence of mind, vehicle mechanism knowledge, past experience etc. The petitioner secured 63 marks out of 100 marks during the selection process and stood at serial No.1 in the final selection list. As there is only one post of driver was notified, the petitioner was appointed in the said post. In the Notification issued calling for the applications to fill up the post of driver on contract basis, the applicant should have three years experience in driving. There is no any specific condition that the applicant should have the experience of driving the Government vehicles. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in fact the petitioner worked as driver on the private vehicle of D