ARVIND KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi vide appointment order dated 4-4-1997 Annexure P-4, the petitioner in pursuance there of joined on 5-4-97 vide Annexure P-5. Thereafter the petitioner was sent for training and after completing the training, certificate Annexure P-6 was issued to the petitioner. Again in the year 1998 the petitioner was sent for training and after completing the training, certificates Annexures P-7 and P-8 were issued to him. Certificates with regard to satisfactory working of the petitioner were also issued by the Panchayat vide Annexure P-9. Annexure P-10 is the certificate issued with regard to working of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents indicate that the petitioner had been working satisfactorily after his appointment and there was no complaint whatsoever against him. Various documents have been filed vide Annexures P-10 to P-13 to indicate that the petitioner's work was satisfactory.

(2.) ALL of sudden without hearing him and without giving any opportunity of representation and without conducting any enquiry vide order dated 1-12-1998 Annexure P-14 the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. Initially the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner but as the same was rejected as not maintainable the petitioner challenged the order before this Court in the present petition. This Court on 16-8-99 has stayed the order of termination and according to the Counsel for petitioner, the petitioner is still working. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed after Samudai has passed a resolution and made a demand for opening of the school and his name was recommended by Samudai vide Annexure P-2 thereafter Gram Panchayat passed resolution Annexure P-3. It is the case of the petitioner that according to the Education Guarantee Scheme, appointment of Shiksha Karmi are done on the basis of demand and recommendation made by the Samudai and approved by the Gram Panchayat. That being so his appointment was perfectly justified and termination without giving him opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show-cause notice or conducting enquiry was illegal.

(3.) THE respondent-State has filed its reply and it is averred in the said reply that in the list submitted the Gram Panchayat demand for appointment of 'guruji' the name of the petitioner did not find place, therefore, his services were terminated.