SUDARSHAN DHAR DIWAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner aggrieved by the order of cancellation of his appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-2 (Physical Instructor) has filed this writ petition seeking for following reliefs:-

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that pursuant to advertisement issued by respondent No.2 for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi, petitioner applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade- 2 (Physical Instructor). After completion of due selection process, respondent No.2 issued appointment order dated 16.6.2010 in favour of petitioner vide order dated 29.1.2010 (Annexure P-3). Within a short period of time, appointment of petitioner was cancelled vide impugned order dated 21.9.2010 (Annexure P-1) mentioning that petitioner has already crossed maximum age limit prescribed under the rules to hold post of Shiksha Karmi. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Mr. Suresh Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that vide order dated 16.6.2010 (Annnexure P-3) petitioner and 28 other candidates were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-2 (Physical Instructor). After considering application form and documents submitted along with it, respondent No.2 considered the petitioner to be eligible and had issued appointment order in his favour. After being appointed, petitioner joined at the place of posting on 21.6.2010 i.e. Government Higher Secondary, Dahi, District Dhamtari (CG) and continued to work there till issuance of order of cancellation of his appointment on 21.9.2010. Appointment of petitioner as Shiksha Karmi Grade-2 was under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules of 2007'); even if it is found subsequent to appointment and joining of petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, that petitioner was not eligible to hold post of Shiksha Karma, respondent No.2 could have terminated his services following the provisions contained in Rule 10 and 11 of the Rules of 2007. However, no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner before issuing order of cancellation, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. He contended that appointment order has been issued upon approval by the General Administration Standing Committee of Zila Panchayat, Dhamtari, but order of Annexure P-1 was passed without obtaining approval from the competent authority, hence the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Lastly, he contended that respondent No.2 has not paid any salary for the period during which the petitioner has worked as Shiksha Karmi Grade-2 i.e. from 21.6.2010 to 21.9.2010. Appointment order itself prescribes for termination of service of Shiksha Karmi if not satisfactory by issuing one month's prior notice or in lieu thereof one month's salary. Respondent No.2 has not given any notice nor paid one month's salary to petitioner. He submits that as there is non-compliance of the provisions of the Rules of 2007, conditions of appointment order as also there is violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order Annexure P-1 is liable to be set aside.