MANJU SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8-8-2002 said to be issued by respondent No. 4 and the subsequent order issued by respondent No. 1 on 15th December, 2008, by which the petitioner is said to be relieved to join on her post in the State of Chhattisgarh on account of her permanent allocation to the said State. It is contended that the petitioner made an option for allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh, the said option was immediately recalled by her, but instead of considering such a prayer, the petitioner was finally allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. That being so, challenging the final order of allocation the Original Application was filed before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, where an interim stay was granted to the petitioner. The said matter came on transfer to this Court after closer of the Tribunal and was registered as writ petition and was disposed of vide order dated 15-9-2003. It was categorically directed by this Court that the petitioner will make an appropriate representation before the competent authority of the Central Government, which in fact has constituted a committee for the said purposes and the said committee will call the comment from the concerned authority of the State Government and will decide the representation of petitioner by a speaking order. It is the contention of the petitioner that such a representation was made by her annexing with it all the relevant documents. However, nothing was heard by her till the relieving order was issued on 15th December, 2008. The Central Government instead of deciding the representation and communicating a decision to the petitioner sent some order rejecting the representation of the petitioner to the State Government pursuance to which the order dated 15th December, 2008 was issued directing relieving of the petitioner. Against these actions, present writ petition was filed. This Court while entertaining the writ petition has granted an interim stay to the petitioner on 6-1-2009, pursuance to which she is continuing in the services of the State of Madhya Pradesh. By filing the return the respondents No. 1 and 2 have contended that the representation made by the petitioner pursuance to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition was rejected by the respondent-Union of India and the said order dated 5/13 January, 2005 was communicated to the State Government. The petitioner was rightly relieved and, therefore, nothing can be done in the said matter nor the order impugned is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the order of allocation is issued by the Central Government, the representation is decided by the Central Government and, therefore, the respondents have rightly issued the order of relieving of the petitioner. It is thus stated that the writ petition being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed.

(2.) A return has been filed by respondent No. 3 and it is contended that it is the issue which is to be decided by the Central Government and since under the Rules the Union of India has decided the claim of petitioner with respect to the allocation, the respondent-State of Chhattisgarh has no say in the matter. However, it is pointed out that nearly about 9 years of period has gone after formation of the State of Chhattisgarh and because of shortage of employees the State of Chhattisgarh is facing day to day problem in the administration which is causing inconvenience to the public at large.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed on record the orders passed by this Court in somewhat similar circumstances. In W.P. No. 11184/2005 (s), Brij Nandan Shrivastava vs. Union of India and others, this Court has passed an order on 22-2-2012 and has categorically held that if the Central Government was directed to decide the representation after granting an opportunity of hearing to the persons like petitioner, by passing a speaking order indicating reasons, showing application of mind, and if the representation is rejected merely by two words, it cannot be said that the direction issued by this Court is complied with by the Central Government. In view of this, this Court has quashed the order of allocation as also the order of rejection of representation. In the case of R.K. Dubey vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. 15987/2007(s), while passing the order on 9-1-2012, this Court has again taken note of the order passed in somewhat similar circumstances in W.P. No. 8258/2006 (s), decided on 5-7-2006 and has held that if the reasoned order is not passed on the representation made and if the representation is rejected without application of mind, the order of rejection of representation cannot be sustained meaning thereby the order of allocation is also liable to be quashed.