IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J.
Akash Nayak, S/o Shri Shyamlal Nayak - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikas Vibhag and ors., - Petitioner
WPS No. 2043 & 2044 of 2015
Decided On : 10-11-2023
Natural Justice - Termination of Services - Article 226 - Circular dated 7.11.2013, UGC Regulations, 2003 - Principles of Natural Justice - Distance Education - Civil Engineering - [3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as Sub Engineers (Civil) and their services were terminated due to a dispute regarding their educational qualifications obtained through distance education. The petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of services without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and without complying with the principles of natural justice was not sustainable in law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the termination of services, compliance with educational qualifications, and the application of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of affording an opportunity of hearing before terminating services, especially when the employees have served for a significant period. It cited previous decisions to support the requirement of compliance with natural justice principles.
Final Decision: The impugned orders terminating the petitioners' services were set aside, and the petitions were allowed with consequential benefits. The respondents were reserved the liberty to take appropriate action following the basic principles of natural justice.
ORDER :
1. Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 5.5.2015 (Annexure P/1) issued by Chief Engineer, Department of Rural Engineering Services, CG, Raipur whereby their services on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) have been terminated and for directing the respondent authorities to allow them to continue working on the said post.
2. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Department of Rural Engineering Services, CG, Raipur, the petitioners applied for the post of Sub Engineer and after due selection process, they were selected and appointed on the said post. They were working on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) since 25.9.2013. However, all of a sudden, after 1 year and 9 months of their appointment, the Development Commissioner, Department of Rural Engineering Services, Raipur terminated their services on the ground that their educational qualification is not in accordance with the recruitment rules. Hence these petitions for the following reliefs:
2) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 5.5.2015 has been passed in an illegal manner, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with premeditation and malafide intention. It is a well settled principle of law that if any order visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated if passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected person. It is further submitted that the respondents being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India have failed to appreciate the very fact that fair play in action warrants that no order which has the effect of the status of a person suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing on the matter. The petitioners have not obtained the requisite qualification through distance mode and therefore, by applying the circular dated 7.11.2013 their appointment cannot be cancelled. The respondent authorities cannot be permitted to take two different stands which are self contradictory as in WPS No.981/2014 the State had taken a stand that the petitioners have all the requisite qualifications and their appointment is valid and subsequently, they terminated their services on the ground that they did not have requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil). Therefore, the impugned order dated 5.5.2015 is liable to be set aside and the respondent authorities be directed to allow the petitioners to continue working on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil).
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Vikas Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 and the order dated 12.6.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in WA No.450 of 2021 in the matter of Krishna Kumar Kosaria Vs. State of CG and another.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents strongly oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that respondent No.3 issued an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment on various vacant
Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar
Jai Shanker v. State of Rajasthan
Mrityunjay Shukla and others Vs. Municipal Corporation, Raiupr and others
State of Assam v. Akshaya Kumar Deb
Vikas Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to afford an opportunity of hearing and comply with the principles of natural justice before terminating an employee's services.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the principles of natural justice and conduct a departmental enquiry before terminating the services of employees. The....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of degrees obtained through distance education and the recognition of universities as deemed Universities by the State authorities.
The recognition of degrees obtained through distance education and the adherence to eligibility criteria for government posts.
There is no termination order but only a relieve order is passed by the respondents on 01.02.2014 on completion of the contractual engagement period of two years.
The court upheld the termination of a contractual employee as valid, emphasizing that rights are governed by the contract terms, and principles of natural justice do not apply in the same manner to c....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.