PALAS BALVANTSINH RUPABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for seeking following relies:

(2.) The background of the present case is that the petitioner, who belongs to a schedule tribe category, has cleared his SSC examination from Madhyamik School Saiyali Jalod as also HSC examination from Uttar Buniyadi Ashram School, Jalod. The petitioner had thereafter joined the course in physical education at BSSM in Maharashtra and has cleared the same in the year 1989 at the first trial. Later on, an advertisement came to be published in Jai Hind newspaper for recruitment to the post of Primary Teacher on 13.2.1990 and pursuant to the said advertisement, on 7.3.1990 the petitioner made an application; appeared in the interview and submitted all his testimonials before the interview committee. Thereafter, having found suitable by the interview committee as a deserving candidate, on 3.8.1990 the petitioner was appointed by issuance of appointment order and the entire selection took place after proper process of interview in the month of February March,1990 and as many as 469 candidates came to be selected and issued the appointments to the post of Primary Teacher. It is further the case of the petitioner that petitioner was posted at Amodra Kanya Shala, Una on 21.8.1990 where he served for a period of 10 years without having any adverse remarks in his performance and was thereafter transferred to Prathmik School, Pichoda, Dahod around the year 2000. During the said tenure of service also, the petitioner had served with all his sincerity and honesty; no remarks adverse came to be issued against him. However, a notice was issued by respondent No.2 on 12.6.2006 calling the petitioner to remain present at the office on 16.9.2006. The petitioner did remain present. But, since respondent No.2 was not available in the office, nothing took place on 16.9.2006. However, the petitioner had supplied a detailed reply to the notice. Thereafter, on 18.6.2006, since the petitioner was not keeping well, was on sick leave, surprisingly, received a caveat application filed by respondent No.2 in the High Court and thereafter, on 28.9.2006, suddenly, the petitioner received an order of termination dated 18.9.2006 passed by respondent No.2. Since this had abruptly taken place, left with no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This petition came to be entertained by this Court and ultimately has come up for final disposal in which Mr.D.D.Vyas, learned advocate, has represented the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been originally granted the ad-interim relief in terms of Para.14(C), he was continued to discharge his service and the said interim order, dated 13.2.2007 has not been disturbed so far and with this background, the present petition has come up before this Court finally.

(3.) Mr.D.D.Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that order of termination is passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and on this count alone, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. It has further been submitted that deliberately and incorrectly it has been recorded in the impugned order that petitioner was heard before passing the order. In fact, the petitioner had waited for respondent No.2 for whole day on 16.9.2006 but, till 6.00 p.m., the respondent No.2 had not turned up and, therefore, no actual hearing had taken place on that day. Learned advocate has submitted that the officer concerned was not available at all and, therefore, question of hearing does not arise. It has further been contended that notice dated 12.9.2006 is vague and lacks the particulars relevant to the issue and has submitted that petitioner was appointed lawfully after following appropriate procedure and in consideration of GR dated 2.1.1990 and, therefore, after almost period of long span of more than 16 years, no such action could have been taken, as has been done in the present case.