PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions, common questions are involved and, therefore, they can be disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE Director of National Institute of Ayurved notified an advertisement on 1 -12 -1982 inviting applications for direct recruitment on various vacant posts including the post of Laboratory Technicians. The qualifications with regard to the post of Laboratory Technician were as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... The petitioners in pursuance of the said advertisement applied for the post of Laboratory Technicians and they were duly selected by the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the Rules. S/Shri Madhu Sudan Sharma and Dinesh Kumar Tiwari were given appointment vide order dated 31 -5 -1984 as Laboratory Technicians though their names were below the names of the petitioners. A representation was submitted by the petitioners and other candidates who were higher in order of merit and thereafter, the petitioners were also appointed vide order dated 11 -9 -1985 on probation for a period of two years as per Rule 34 of the National Institute of Ayurved Service Rules, 1982, here in after referred to as the 'Rules'. Curiously enough, service of petitioners were terminated vide order dated 31 -1 -1986 (Anx. 4). The petitioners filed writ petition Nos. 238 and 239 of 1986 which were allowed by this Court on 19th May, 1986 and the order dated 31st January. 1986 was set aside, since the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity, what so ever, and being in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The non -petitioners, in that writ petition, had contended that since the petitioners did not fulfil the requirement of experience and submitted false certificates for having acquired the experience, their service were terminated, because in the appointment order itself, it was made clear that if any declaration or information furnished by the candidate is found to be false, he will be liable to removal from service. This Court did not decide that question on merits as the parties had filed counter affidavits on that aspect and the respondents were left free to take any action, if they chose to do so, by giving an opportunity of explaining and hearing to the petitioners, and thereafter, take any decision according to law.

(3.) THE petitioners thereafter filed appeals before the President, Governing Body, National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur on 3 -6 -1987 but the same was also dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 24 -8 -1987 (Annexure -22) and, thereafter, the petitioner Pramod Kumar Sharma filed Writ Petition No. 2580/88 on 8 -8 -1988 challenging the impugned orders dated 21 -4 -1987 and 24 -8 -1987, and so also Kailash Chand filed WP No. 2976/88.