KISHANLAL KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved b the order Annexure P-1 dated 19-7-1999 where by his appointment has been cancelled on the enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Guna and respondent No. 6 Shri Mohammad Islam Khan has been appointed in place of petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application for appointment under a scheme known as Madhya Pradesh Education Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter, referred to as the 'scheme' ). The Education Committee has considered the case of the petitioner and prepared a provisional panelin which petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1. In pursuance of the recommendations petitioner's appointment was approved by the Project Officer vide Order dated 15-1-1999 Annexure P-5. Petitioner was appointed in Alternative School Harijan Chak in Village Goura. After the appointment, respondent No. 6 made complaints to the respondents regarding the selection of the petitioner. On the complaint of the respondent No. 6 it appears that some enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer submitted his report dated 28-4-1999 filed as Annexure R-6 with the respondents 1 to 4. The Sub- Divisional Officer held that application form of the respondent No. 6 was received by the Gram Panchayat, but his name was not included in the panel though he secured higher percentage of marks. The conduct of Sarpanch and Secretary of the Panchayat was found to be doubtful. He recorded an finding that appointment of the petitioner is liable to be quashed and respondent No. 6 having higher percentage of marks be appointed in place of the petitioner. After the report dated 28-4-1999, order Annexure P-1 was passed and respondent No. 6 was appointed in place of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that this order is passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that once right has accrued in favour of the petitioner it cannot be withdrawn without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that once the petitioner's appointment was approved on 15-1-1999 by the District Organiser, it could not be set at naught unless opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioner. Learned counsel then submitted that the letter referred in the document Annexure R-6 dated 11-12-1998 has not been filed by respondents 1 to 4. Even the order whereby appointment is cancelled has not been produced by the respondents though notices were issued to them. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that this order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner is bad in law and deserves to be quashed, and the petitioner shall be allowed to continue as teacher.