MUKESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) WP (S) Nos.6393, 6646 and 7025 of 2009 involve common facts as well as common question of law, thus, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order.

(3.) THE authority has not disclosed anything except that there were serious irregularities in appointment of Pharmacist Grade - II on contract basis. It is worth mentioning that the impugned decision to cancel the appointment was taken after the petitioners were allowed to work for a period of about 15 months, on the ground of alleged irregularities without pointing out the nature of irregularities. Thus, it was necessary that the petitioners should have been noticed about the alleged irregularities providing opportunity to them to put forward their respective cases before passing the impugned order. It is not the case of cancellation of appointment on the terms of the appointment order, but cancellation was stigmatic.