SHARDA SARAF Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 30 th August, 2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 2594/2016.

(2.) The Writ Petition at the instance of respondent No. 4 was directed against the order dated 20th January 2016 passed by the Collector (Public Services Authority) district Damoh. The Collector was in seisin with a representation preferred by the present appellant in furtherance to the leave granted to her vide order passed in Writ Petition No. 12125/2014 on 26.6.2015. The said Writ petition at the instance of present appellant was directed against the order dated 30.7.2014; whereby, the services of the present appellant was terminated on account of certain irregularities. Learned Single Judge while declining to cause any indulgence with the said order of termination on the finding that the appellant was appointed on contract basis vide order dated 7.9.2011 initially for a period of one year and thereafter further contract period of the petitioner was extended vide order dated 2.9.2013 from 1.9.2013 to 31.8.2014 and observing that even if termination order is set aside the petitioner will not get benefit of reinstatement because the contract period of the petitioner was extended only up to 31.8.2014. While observing thus the learned Single Judge declined to cause any indulgence with the termination order and issued a direction in regard to extension of contract appointment. However, liberty was granted to the employer that to consider the case of the appellant whether a contract appointment can be extended or not in view of the fact that there are allegations against the appellant. The Collector who was in seisin with the representation preferred by the appellant, besides setting aside the order of appointment of respondent No. 4 directed for appointment of the appellant for a period of one year w.e.f. 25.1.2016.

(3.) Aggrieved the respondent No. 4 preferred a Writ Petition on the ground that he having been appointed as District Manager (Public Services) on 23.5.2015 after due selection, the appointment order could not have been set aside without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Learned Single Judge dwelling on rival contentions found that Collector (Public Services Authority) Damoh exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the order of termination dated 31.7.2014 and directing the appointment of present appellant for a period of one year as District Manager (Public Services) by setting aside the order of appointment of respondent No. 4.