ORDER

1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged their removal from the post of Guruji without forwarding any opportunity of hearing and issuing any show cause notice.

2. The petitioner No.1-Smt. Kumudani Khare was appointed as Guruji for the School situated at Padajheer under Block-Bada Maleharra, Panhchayat Gurajpurkala District Chhatarpur and she joined on 2.1.1997. The petitioner No.2-Smt. Ramkali Ahirwar was appointed as Guruji for the School situated at Ganshi Nagar under Block-Bada Maleharra, District Chhatarpur and she joined on 24.2.1997 and the petitioner No.3- Rajesh Dixit was appointed as Guruji for the School situated at Gandhi Nagar under Block-Bada Maleharra, District Chhatarpur and he joined on 24.2.1997. The appointment of the petitioners were made under the general instructions issued for the program known as District Primary Education Program by which the proposal were approved by the Collector as Mission Leader and petitioners were appointed as Guruji upon the recommendation of Panchayat.

3. By the order No.1037 dated 31.3.2003, all of a sudden the petitioners and others were removed from the post of Guruji by Block Education Officer, Block Badamalherra, District Chhatarpur, without assigning any reason. Before issuance of order dated 31.3.2003, no show cause notice to the petitioners, no inquiry held and no opportunity of hearing was granted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.4 is in violation of principle of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. In view of the settled proposition of law that before removal any employee there should be an opportunity of hearing granted to them.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order and submitted that the scheme known as District Primary Education Program was framed under the M.P. Education Guarantee Scheme for the purpose of imparting education to the children who were unable to get the education on account of their personal and family problems. This scheme was launched to fulfill the obligation of the State to provide education to all in view of the article 41 of the Constitution of India, which guaranteed right to education. Learned counsel further submits that upon the complaint of the local residence, the action was taken against the petitioners and they were removed by the Collector and not by the Block Education Officer. It is submitted that as the appointment was contractual, there was no need to hold any inquiry before the removal. Certain documents were placed on record by the respondent to demonstrate that the District Level Committee has recommended for removal of the petitioners.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as Guruji. It is also an admitted position on record that no show cause notice has been issued to any of the petitioners before removal. On the contrary, it appears from, the record that petitioners were removed by the Block Education Officer vide order dated 31.3.2003 (Annexure-P-6) but the meeting of the District Level Committee was held on 14.7.2003 wherein the decision was taken to remove the petitioners. Meaning thereby, the petitioners were removed by District Block Officer and not on the basis of decision of the committee.

8. This Court has granted the interim relief to the petitioners on 14.7.2003 whereby the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioners in service. Upon specific query by the Court, the counsels of the parties apprise the Court that since 14.7.2003, the petitioners are working and they are getting salary also. During this period of 20 years, no prayer was made on behalf of the respondents either orally or by moving an application to vacate or modify the interim order dated 14.7.2003 and it appears that the respondents have no grievance, if the petitioners are working.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it proper to allow