NITU PANDIT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashing of the appointment letter as well as joining of the respondent no. 7 as Cluster Coordinator at Upgraded Middle School, Purnadih, P.S. Tundi Dist. Dhanbad.

(2.) In view of the notice regarding appointment for the post of Cluster Coordinator for the Upgraded Middle School, Purnadih a meeting was held on 29.6.2007 which was attended by the members of the 16 Mata Samiti for the appointment to the post of Cluster Coordinator in the Upgraded Middle School, Purnadih. The petitioner Nitu Pandit was unanimously selected by all the members vide order dated 29.06.2007 (Anexure-2). A resolution dated 29.06.2007 was sent to the Competent authorities in pursuance to the letter no. 19.9.2007. In view of resolution, the petitioner joined to the said post on 20.9.2007. Information with regard to joining of the petitioner was sent to all the competent authorities of the department. In compliance to the order as contained in letter dated 19.09.2007 the Headmaster Shri Matru Hembram furnished all the articles along with its list required in the NPEGL work to the petitioner. Total value of the articles, handed over to the petitioner, worth Rs. 30,000/- and used on 24.09.2007. Since her joining i.e 20.09.2007, the petitioner is working as the Cluster Coordinator to the satisfaction of all the Competent authorities without a single adverse remark. It is further stated that on 210.2007 a General Assembly was held in which none of the Mata Samiti Member was present except one, and respondent no. 7 was selected for the same post in the same school in which the petitioner was posted and working. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred challenging the order of appointment of the respondent no. 7.

(3.) Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed following the due procedure of law regarding appointment of Cluster Coordinator. Mr. Tiwari further argues that the petitioner was neither made a party in the selection process nor she ever participated and without giving any notice and any opportunity of being heard, this impugned order has been passed. It has been done illegally and arbitrarily which does not have legs to stand in the eyes of law. Mr. Tiwari further argues that on inquiry the petitioner came to know that on the telephonic message the aforesaid process of selection was held by the respondent No. 8 and 9. Learned counsel further submits that even those persons were invited for the meeting who were not the members of Mata Samiti. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection of respondent No. 7 as Cluster Coordinator was not in accordance with law and in view of the fact that every process of appointment was done behind the back and she was selected as a Cluster Coordinator without following the procedure of law. In view of that selection of respondent No. 7 is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and without following the principle of natural justice.