SMT. REEMA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of parties, heard finally.

(2.) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 07/08/2014 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner (District Sports Coach {contractual} Grade-II) has been removed from the said post due to non-fulfilment of the required eligibility conditions as per M.P. Khel or Yuvak Kalyan Samvidha Khel Prashikshak (Niyojan Evam Sewa Ki Sharte), Rules 2006 (for brevity "Rules of 2006") with immediate effect. Because of termination of service of the petitioner with immediate effect, one month contractual honorarium was paid to her in lieu of dispensation of her service.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the solitary ground of non-grant of reasonable opportunity of hearing. According to counsel for the petitioner; vide appointment order dated 9th June, 2006 (Annexure P/2), petitioner has been appointed on contract basis for one year as a coach in the District Sports and Youth Welfare Department. Thereafter, her tenure was extended regularly consisting of one year and she remained in the job on contract basis. He further submitted that petitioner worked for almost 8 years before passing of the impugned order and has acquired enough experience and qualification for the said post. Further argument of counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has not been accorded sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order and her services have been terminated with immediate effect, which is an arbitrary and illegal exercise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contractual employee has the right to be heard before termination because the order of termination is stigmatic in nature and therefore, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Chaurasiya v. State of M.P. and Others, 2002 (3) MPLJ 112, Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Others v. Abahi Kumar and Others, (2001) 3 SCC 328 and Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Another, (2010) 10 SCC 744. He also relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the matter of Prakash Chandra Kein v. State of M.P. and Others, 2010 (5) MPHT 452 as well as in the matter of Deepak Nagle v. State of M.P., 2014 (2) MPLJ 76. He also relied upon Rules of 2006 as amended on 13/05/2006, wherein it has been added that the person who has played National Games/ National Championship/ or All India University or School Games Competition and won a medal in the said competition then they are entitled to be appointed as a Coach. In sum and substance, he pleads quashment of impugned order.