Back
2001 (1) JLJ 116
Bhawani Singh, C.J. and A.K. Mishra, J.
Mata Prasad Sahu v. State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 5804 of 1998; Decided on 25.4.2000.
(2) Civil Servant -- dismissal on ground of illigal appointment -- principles of natural justice should be followed.
Facts disclose that the petitioners were either appointed against regular pay scales or on daily wage basis. They continued in the same capacity for sometime and thereafter some were regularised, while the petitioners in the two Writ Petitions aforesaid were promoted to the posts of Compounder (Ayurved) and Compounder (Homoeopathy) respectively. The question for determination in these cases is whether the respondents could dispense with the services of the petitioners without affording opportunity of being heard in defence of the action that was intended to be taken against them.
Held: We are of considered opinion that the petitioners were entitled to prior hearing in these cases. [Para 6
The case set up by the respondents is that appointment of the petitioners was against the rules and Government instructions. Petitioners denied this statement. They also denied that they are not qualified for the post of dispensary servants and Compounder (Ayurved) and Compounder (Homoeopathy). With this background, it was desirable that the respondents should have associated the petitioners in the enquiry that was conducted into the whole affair, but the Committee appointed to look into the matter proceeded in its own way. It should have called the petitioners also to represent their cases before recording the finding that these appointments were illegally made. [Para 7
Process for taking action is to answer requirement of fairness which is an essential attribute of justice. Petitioners have remained in service for a long time. Some of them were promoted to the higher posts also. Therefore, before taking the action, opportunity for hearing should have been extended to them. AIR 1990 SC 1402, AIR 1991 SC 309 and AIR 1998 SC 3261 followed. AIR 1996 SC 2219, (1994) 2 SCC 631 and (1997) 1 SCC 350 distinguished. [Para 10
¼1½ uSlfxZd U;k; && voS/k fu;qfDr ds vk/kkj ij flfoy lsodksa dh inP;qfr && fl)karksa dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
¼2½ flfoy lsod && voS/k fu;qfDr ds vk/kkj ij inP;qfr && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
rF;ksa ls izdV gS fd ;kphx.k dh fu;qfDr fu;fer osruekuksa ij vFkok nSfud etnwjh ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZ FkhA og dqN le; rd mlh gSfl;r esa jgs] rRi‘pkr~ dqN dk fu;ferhdj.k fd;k x;k] tcfd iwoksZDr nks fjV ;kfpdkvksa ds ;kphx.k Øe‘k% daikmaMj ¼vk;qosZn½ rFkk daikmaMj ¼gksE;ksiSFkh½ ds inksa ij izksUur dj fn, x,A bu ekeyksa esa vo/kkj.kkFkZ iz‘u ;g gS fd D;k ;kphx.k ds fo:) dh tkus okyh vk‘kf;r dkjZokbZ ds izfrokn esa lqus tkus dk mudks volj fn, fcuk izR;FkhZx.k }kjk ;kphx.k dh lsok lekIr dh tk ldrh FkhA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd ;kphx.k bu ekeyksa esa iwoZrj lquokbZ ds gdnkj FksA ¿ iSjk 6
izR;FkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k i{kdFku ;g gS fd ;kphx.k dh fu;qfDr fu;eksa rFkk ljdkjh vuqns‘kksa ds fo:) FkhA ;kphx.k us bl dFku dk izR;k[;ku fd;kA mUgksaus bldk Hkh izR;k[;ku fd;k fd og fMLisUljh lsodksa rFkk daikmaMj ¼vk;qosZn½ vkSj daikmaMj ¼gksE;ksiSFkh½ ds in ds fy, vgZ ugha gSA bl i`"BHkwfe esa] okaNuh; Fkk fd izR;FkhZx.k }kjk ;kphx.k dks laiw.kZ dk;Zdyki dh tk¡p esa lg;qDr fd;k tkrk ijarq bl fo"k; dh tk¡p djus ds fy, fu;qDr lfefr }kjk vius <ax ls dk;Zokgh dh xbZA ;g fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djus ls iwoZ fd ;g fu;qfDr;k¡ voS/k :i ls dh xbZ Fkha] mlds }kjk ;kphx.k] dks Hkh viuk i{kdFku O;ifn"V djus ds fy, cqyk;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA
dkjZokbZ djus ds fy, izfØ;k _tqrk dh vis{kk iw.kZ djus dh gS] tks U;k; dk vko‘;d /keZ gSA ;kphx.k yacs le; rd lsokjr jgs gSaA muesa ls dqN mPprj inksa ij izksUur Hkh fd, x, FksA vr%] dkjZokbZ djus ls iwoZ mUgsa lquokbZ dk volj fn;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 1402] , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 309 rFkk , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 3261 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 2219] ¼1994½ 2 ,l lh lh 631 rFkk ¼1997½ 1 ,l lh lh 350 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 10
Singh, C.J. -- 1. This batch of 17 Writ Petitions (1) W.P. 1808/98 (Maniram Jatav v. State of M.P. and others); (2) W.P. No. 5785/98 (Ramavtar Sahu v. State of M.P. and others); (3) W.P. No. 5790/98 (Mst. Mushtari Begum v. State of M.P. and others), (4) W.P. No. 5804/98 (Mataprasad Sahu v. State of M.P. and others), (5) W.P. No. 5815/98 (Moreshwar Barasker v. State of M.P. and others), (6) W.P. No. 5838/98 (Shyamraj Chichkhere v. State of M.P. and others), (7) W.P. No. 5949/98 (Ramkishore Kori v. State of M.P. and others), (8) W.P. No. 5951/98 (Rajaram Kori v. State of M.P. and others), (9) W.P. No. 5957/98 (Hari Narayan Sakya v. State of M.P. and others), (10) W.P. No. 5973/98 (Vinod Babu Sharma v. State of M.P. and others), (11) W.P. No.5976/98 (Ghanshyam Das Ahirwar v. State of M.P. and others), (12) W.P. No. 5989/98 (Sampatlal Kulaste v. State of M.P. and others), (13) W.P.No. 5999/98 (Mansaram v. State of M.P. and others), (14) W.P. No. 6003/98 (Shyam Singh Bhadoriya and others v. State of M.P. and others), (15) W.P. 6082/98 (Krishna Kumar Verma v. State of M.P. and others), (16) W.P. No. 619/99 (Smt. Aasha Chandani v. State of M.P. and others), (17) W.P. No. 659/99 (Ghanshyam Vanaskar v. State of M.P. and others) is proposed to be decided by this order since they are common in nature and the question for determination in all of them is the same.
2. Some of the petitioners were appointed against regular pay scales, while others were appointed on daily wage basis by different orders, as dispensary servants, Class IV post under the State Government. Those who were appointed for 89 days were continued in that capacity for number of years and then regularised. Petitioners in W.P. No. 5804/98 and W.P. No. 5815/98 were also promoted to the post of Compounder (Ayurved) and Compounder (Homeopathy) respectively. These appointments were questioned and the matter was raised in the State Vidhan Sabha at some stage sequel to which a Committee was appointed to look into the matter. The Committee examined the matter and found that these appointments were illegally made. Consequently, the order dated March 23, 1998 (Annexure P-8) was passed terminating the services of the petitioners.
3. Petitioners challenged the action of the respondents before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal Bhopal through different applications which have been dismissed Accepting the case of the respondents the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that these were illegal appointments petitioners were not qualified therefore they had no right to continue in service. Consequently action taken was justified. Petitioners have challenged the decision through these petitions.
4. Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the decision of the respondents terminating the services of the petitioners is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Elaborating the contention learned counsel submits that the termination order spells out that the action was taken for three reasons namely the appointments were bad and so were the regularisation and promotions. How the appointments, regularisation and promotions were bad has remained within the domain of the respondents and at the most, the Committee which is stated to have been appointed to look into the matter. With a view to bring home the point reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1402 (Ku. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others); AIR 1991 SC 309 (Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others), AIR 1996 SC 2833 (Ashwani Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others) and AIR 1998 SC 3261 (Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and others). Next contention of learned counsel is that finding of the Tribunal that petitioners are not qualified is patently unsustainable. Reference is made to the rules for appointment and it is contended that the petitioners are qualified to hold the posts to which they have been recrui
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
