LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-128

TULSIRAM VERMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On August 23, 2019
Tulsiram Verma Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether the judgment rendered by a learned Judge of this Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein, who are the affected parties and whose appointments have been set aside, is liable to be sustained in view of violation of the fundamental rule of audi alteram partem?"

(2.) The sequence and events shows that the selection and appointment to the post of Headmaster in Primary Schools was the subject matter of dispute/ challenge in the various writ petitions filed before this Hon'ble Court. As a matter of fact, Advertisements were issued for filling up the posts of Shiksha Karmis, Grade-I, II and III way back in the year 2010, which was a District-wise appointment and steps were being pursued accordingly. While so, the terminology mentioned in the Advertisement, that it was to be by 'Promotion' was sought to be corrected by the Director of Public Instructions, as per the relevant proceedings dated 20/09/2010 issued to all the District Education Officers in the State, to have it taken as 'Direct Recruitment', by way of a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination to fill up the posts. It was accordingly, that further steps were pursued by the District Education Officers in this regard.

(3.) It is to be noted in this context that, the said Advertisements and the Rules on the basis of which such Advertisements were issued were sought to be challenged by some of the aspirants by filing writ petitions before this Court. The challenge against the validity of the Rules and the Advertisements was repelled and a Division Bench of this Court, as per judgment dated 25.10.2010 in WPS No.6055/2010. It was held that appointment to the posts in question, as per the relevant rules; in particular Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (School Level Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules, 2008), read with Schedule-II, was never by 'Promotion' but by way of 'Direct Recruitment'. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed and the matter ended up there.