RAKHI KHARE Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 11/07/2011 passed by respondent No.2.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 30/11/2006 on contract basis. Thereafter, contract of the petitioner has been renewed vide order dated 23/02/2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was adjusted against newly created post of Computer Operator in District Hospital Chhatarpur in pursuance to the order dated 08/08/2008 passed by respondent No.2 since the petitioner is performing her duties, functioning and responsibilities to utmost satisfaction of senior authorities. However, suddenly by respondent No.2 an order has been issued on 11/07/2011 by which order dated 08/08/2008 has been cancelled. The said order was issued in pursuance to the order dated 31/03/2010 passed in W.P.No.4188/2010 in which petitioner is respondent No.5. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 31/03/2010 to the effect that appointment if any made shall be provisional and subject to final decision of the writ petition. The petitioner further submits that before passing the impugned order, no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to her. He further submits that in the interim order, this Court has not given any direction for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.

(3.) The respondents have filed their return and submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Computer Operator at Integrated Disease Surveillance Program in District Hospital Chhatarpur. There were two post of Computer Operator in the said program by an order dated 28/07/2008 one post of Computer Operator was reduced but petitioner being an efficient computer operator and her past service record was outstanding, therefore, a decision has been taken to absorb her services on the post of temporary Computer Operator in the District Hospital Chhatarpur which was upgraded and the post of Computer Operator has been sanctioned for the said upgraded hospital. Her services were absorbed on 28/07/2008. Respondents further stated that several complaints made to the Collector by one Smt. Renu Bala and on her complaint, an Inquiry Officer was appointed who submitted his report and, therefore, in pursuance to the said irregular selection process, appointments have been cancelled. Although the appointment of the petitioner was not a part of irregular selection because petitioner did not participate in the same and her services was absorbed in the year 2008 looking to the need of the work and also taking note of her past performance. Moreover, there was an instruction issued to the respondent No.3 by respondent No.2 on 29/06/2011 giving reference of the enquiry report and also the findings given by the Inquiry Officer, there was no option to cancel the selection of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that in the present case, an opportunity of hearing was not required to be given because the same has been cancelled on the basis of findings given by Inquiry Officer.