LEKHRAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dtd. 1/6/2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.3, whereby the appointment order dtd. 7/1/2013 of the petitioner on the post of Forest Guard has been cancelled on the ground of not fulfilling educational criteria.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the Respondent No. 2 had issued an advertisement (Annexure P/2) for recruitment to the post of Forest Guard and Driver through direct recruitment for various Forest Division of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner having fulfilled all the eligibility criteria applied for the post of Forest Guard along with all testimonial documents (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, the office of Respondent No. 3 issued a call letter (Annexure P/4) to petitioner for physical test to be held on 8/12/2012. The petitioner appeared in physical test and declared passed, thereafter the petitioner was called for interview on 12/12/2012 (Annexure P/5). After due process of law and prescribed qualification in advertisement, on the recommendation of the selection committee, the Respondent No. 3 issued appointment letter (Annexure P/6) in favour of petitioner. Thereafter, on 10/1/2013, the petitioner gave his joining (Annexure P/7) on the said post in the office of Respondent No. 3. and on 15/1/2013 Respondent No.3 issued posting order (Annexure P/8) in favour of petitioner at Range flying squad at Raipur. Again on 28/1/2013, an amended posting order has been issued, whereby the petitioner has been posted at Barnawapara Range Forest Division Raipur and the petitioner joined on his respective place at Barnawapara. According to the petitioner, during his working period, impugned order dtd. 1/6/2013 (Annexure P/1) has been issued, whereby the petitioner's appointment order dtd. 7/1/2013 has been cancelled citing the reason that the petitioner has given wrong information regarding his educational qualification and not having required percentage of minimum qualification. Hence, this petition seeking following relief(s) :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities, all of a sudden, without any show cause notice and without following the principles of natural justice, passed the impugned order dtd. 1/6/2013 cancelling the appointment of petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not having prescribed percentage of minimum qualification, whereas according to the advertisement, the minimum qualification for Forest Guard is only Higher Secondary Certificate (10+2) passed from recognized board and no minimum percentage has been prescribed for the post. Even petitioner is having 55.2% marks in higher secondary examination, therefore, after due process of law, on recommendation of authorized selection committee, petitioner has been appointment on the post of Forest Guard. As such, the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 has no leg to stand. The petitioner has been working on the post for last 10 years, attended different training programmes, conferred with certificate for his excellent work and has unblemished record, therefore, termination of the petitioner without affording proper opportunity of hearing is bad in law. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order has been passed without approval of the competent selection committee. Furthermore, no proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner to put his stand which is complete violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has successfully passed in all tests conducted by selection committee, thereafter he has been selected/appointed on merit on the post of Forest Guard. Therefore, the impugned order dtd. 1/6/2013 (Annexure P/1) may be set aside and the petitioner be re-instated in the service.