Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 19077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL ON THE 8th OF JANUARY, 2024 WRIT PET. (SERVICE) No. 11596 of 2004 BETWEEN:- VINOD KUMAR LADIYA S/O SHRI HARISINGH LADIYA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKED AS PEON AT COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER BAHORIBAND DISTRICT KATNI RESIDENCE OF ROHAN MARG NEAR SEETLADEVI MANDIR H.NO. 122 SUBEDAR WARD SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI BHOOP SINGH - ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SOURABH SONI - ADVOCATE) This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following:
Bhoop Singh,Rakesh Patel,S.K.Lodhi,N.K.Patel,Advocate General,A.G./Ashok Agrawal[Ga][1-3]
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner, an order passed by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Katni in the garb of direction of the High Court contained in WP No.3455/2003 decided on 21.10.2003 whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court categorically noted a fact that advertisement through which the petitioner was selected and given appointment was issued on 27.12.2002, last date of accepting the application was 28.12.2002 and the candidates were interviewed on 30.12.2002. Thus, it cannot be said that pursuant to the advertisement due opportunity was given to the incumbents from outside districts to submit their applications and in one day, it was not possible to reach the place or to remit the application by post, as such it cannot be said that due procedure was followed. Thus, the Coordinate Bench held that there was violation of fair procedure enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and refused to sustain the impugned action. However, interim protection was given meanwhile in favour of the working candidates.
A perusal of the petition and the reply, reveals that interim protection came to an end and thereafter fresh recruitment took place. The petitioner neither challenged the fresh recruitment nor impleaded the newly recruited persons as party and, therefore, when there is finding recorded by Coordinate Bench that there was violation of principles of natural justice in selecting the candidates and issuing appointment order Annexure P-3 in favour of the petitioner, there is no illegality in the impugned action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner after giving him one month's notice, calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. As the findings of the Coordinate Bench have not been set aside by Division Bench or the Supreme Court, they are binding on this Court and accordingly, once there is procedural irregularity pointed out by the Coordinate Bench, then the petitioners are not entitled to take advantage of technicalities to sustain their claim.
The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ks JUDGE ks
