CHARULATA GAJPAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a duly conducted recruitment process, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Physical Training Instructor on 2-3- 2009. Immediately after her appointment, one complainant T. Ningraj Reddy, who stood second in the merit list, made complaint to the higher authorities about various irregularities in the selection process and ultimately, the complaint was inquired into and the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dtd. 31/8/2010 feeling aggrieved against which this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the show cause notice runs into three pages and in paragraph 4, the Chief Conservator of Forests has clearly recorded a finding holding that the petitioner's appointment is void and ten reasons have been assigned to hold that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to law. He would further submit that in the end of paragraph 2, the authority had made up his mind that the appointment of the petitioner is void and further, in paragraph 3 only, notice has been issued to the petitioner as to why she be not removed from service by declaring her appointment void. He would also submit that such a notice is without jurisdiction and without authority of law, as without holding departmental enquiry, an opinion has been formed to remove the petitioner from service and as such, it is a mere eyewash just to remove the petitioner from service.

(3.) Mrs. Astha Shukla, learned State counsel, would submit that the petitioner has been directed to file her reply and as such, it is a bare show cause notice and the writ petition is not maintainable.