MARMIK RIBA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. Ete, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. K. Tado, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 28.11.1986 and thereafter, he was appointed as Junior Teacher ('JT' in short) vide order dated 06.07.1987. He, having acquired the requisite qualification and eligibility criteria, was appointed as Assistant District Education Officer ('ADEO' in short) vide order dated 02.06.2003 and posted at Likabali in which he has been serving for last 5 years. Meanwhile, the Govt. decided to streamline the appointments of ADEOs in the Education Department as there were excess appointments of ADEOs without following the due process/norms or procedure. The appointment of the petitioner as ADEO, was, of course made in due process. The respondent authorities, in their effort to streamline the appointments of ADEOs, sought for recommendation from the respective Deputy Director of School Education ('DDSE' in short) of all the districts. Accordingly, the DDSE, West Siang District, forwarded the names of suitable ADEOs by way of recommendations on 24.01.2008 as per their seniority wherin the name of the petitioner found place at serial No. 3. But the respondent authorities illegally appointed the private respondent No. 4, who was not recommended by the DDSE, West Siang District in place of the petitioner and thereby the service of the petitioner as ADEO has been discharged unceremoniously vide order dated 18.07.2008. The present petition has been filed challenging the legality or validity of the aforesaid impugned order dated 18.07.2008 so far it relates to the appointment of private respondent No. 4.

(3.) Mr. K. Ete, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in discharging the petitioner from the service of ADEO is arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as his case was recommended by the DDSE for appointment as ADEO. Similarly, the appointment of private respondent No. 4 as ADEO, without being recommended by the DDSE concerned, is also arbitrary and illegal, which is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the petitioner has gained sufficient experience while serving as ADEO for last 5 years and he is a better qualified person that the private respondent No. 4. The respondent authorities while exercising power of discretion have violated the Principle of Wednesbury as laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. G. Ganayutham, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 463 wherein it is held that while examining 'reasonableness' of an administrative decision, the Court has to find out if the administrator has left out relevant factors or taken into account irrelevant factors. The decision of the administrator must have been within the four corners of the law, and not one while no sensible person could have reasonably arrived at, having regard to the above choices open to the authority but it was for that authority to decide upon the choice and not for the Court to substitute its view. In order to establish his submissions, he relies on the observations made in para 12, which are quoted below :-