Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
PAWAN KUMAR — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 1704, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1770, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1827, 1877, 1880, 1882, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1900, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1912, 1924, 1952, 1960, 2278 and 2471 of 2018
Decided on : 12-03-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary, Mr. Bhoop Singh Moond, Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore, Mr. Rituraj Singh, Mr. M.S. Deora, Mr. B.S. Deora, Mr. K.P. Raj Singh Deora, Mr. K.P.S. Bhati, Mr. Shardul Bishnoi, Mr. H.R. Vishnoi and Mr. Moti Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Vikas Choudhary, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha
The court held that the impugned orders terminating the petitioners' services were passed without proper application of mind, that the opportunity of hearing given to the petitioners was inadequate, and that the respondents were not justified in terminating the petitioners' services before the completion of their tenure.
Headnote:
GRAM PANCHAYAT SAHAYAK - APPOINTMENT - TERMINATION - REINSTATEMENT - CRITERIA - EXTENSION OF CONTRACT - COMMON TRANSPARENT CRITERIA - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT, 1994 - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES, 1996 - RULE 258(3).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were appointed as Gram Panchayat Sahayaks through a selection process conducted by the School Development and Management Committee (SDMC)/School Management Committee (SMC) and approved by a District Level Committee. However, their services were terminated without giving them a proper opportunity of hearing. They challenged the termination orders and the court directed the respondents to give them a proper opportunity of hearing before taking any adverse decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were passed without proper application of mind and that the opportunity of hearing given to the petitioners was merely an exercise of eye wash. The court also noted that the appointments were made for a period of one year only and that the respondents had not been able to point out any grave reasons for terminating the petitioners' services before the completion of their tenure.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned orders terminating the petitioners' services were passed without proper application of mind? 2. Whether the opportunity of hearing given to the petitioners was adequate? 3. Whether the respondents were justified in terminating the petitioners' services before the completion of their tenure?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned orders were passed without proper application of mind as they did not indicate any reasons for terminating the petitioners' services and were passed in a non-speaking manner. 2. The court held that the opportunity of hearing given to the petitioners was inadequate as it was merely an exercise of eye wash and did not provide them with a genuine opportunity to defend their appointments. 3. The court held that the respondents were not justified in terminating the petitioners' services before the completion of their tenure as they had not been able to point out any grave reasons for doing so.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders terminating the petitioners' services. The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners and to maintain their contractual appointments for the remaining period of one year. The court also directed the respondents to develop a common, transparent, and logical criteria for assessing the merit of candidates for future appointments to the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak.
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:
a. The impugned order dated 31.01.2018 annex P/9 qua the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak in Village Sherda with all consequential benefits.
b. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances in the case.
c. Writ petition filed by the Petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
2. Marginal variation in the contextual facts notwithstanding, the legal issues raised herein are the same, permitting analogous disposal of the writ petitions in hand.
3. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts of the leading case i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1704 / 2018 (Pawan Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) are being taken, which are as follows.
4. The petitioner has passed the secondary school examination in the year 2002 and the senior secondary school examination in the year 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner has passed the B.A. Examination in the year of 2008. The petitioner is also having the qualification of B.Ed. which he has acquired in the year of 2010. He is also having the qualification of RSCIT which he has acquired on 01.06.2013.
5. The petitioner is also having the experience of working as computer operator of almost seven years. The experience certificate has been issued for the aforesaid period by the Zila Parishad as well as by the Panchayat Samiti concerned on 24.04.2013 and 15.02.2017.
6. The respondent department introduced an amendment under the Panchayati Raj Rules and has incorporated Sub Rule 3 under Rule 258 by making the following amendment on 02.11.2016.
"(3) Panchayat may appoint any person as Gram Panchayat Sahayak, on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis, for Panchayat Office or for any other work with prior permission of the Chief Executive Officer. He shall be paid from the grant received for the purpose from the State Government on recommendation of the State Finance Commission or out of own income of the Panchayat."
By the aforesaid amendment, the power has been given to the Panchayat to appoint any person as Gram Panchayat Sahayak on part time or on fixed honorarium or on contract basis for the help in the Panchayat Office.
7. Thereafter the circular was issued on 08.11.2016 by the Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department issuing directions with regard to appointments on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak. As per that, candidate seeking appointment for the aforesaid post should have the qualification of senior secondary and should have been a permanent resident of the concerned Panchayat Samiti of the Gram Panchayat under which the selection is being made. Thereafter the procedure has been prescribed as to how the selection will be made. In the aforesaid circular, the proposed posts in every Gram Panchayat have also been referred in appendix-I attached to that circular. As per that, for the District Hanumangarh, two posts have been given for every Gram Panchayat.
8. Thereafter on 27.01.2017, another circular was issued with regard to supplement the guidelines issued on 08.11.2016. As per which, it was prescribed that the selection will be made by the School Development and Management Committee (SDMC)/School Management Committee (SMC). Thereafter again on 01.02.2017 the guidelines were issued by the Secretary of the Panchayati Raj Department by adding certain more guidelines in the earlier circular. As per the circular dated 01.02.2017, it has been prescribed that the meeting of the executive committee of the SDMC would be taken place on 17.02.2017 at 10.00 a.m. in the entire State of Rajasthan. In that, it has been prescribed that the Gram Sewak will be called from Gram Panchayat also
