HINA TOPNO Vs. SEEMA SMITA TOPNO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by way of this writ application, have prayed for quashing the impugned letter No. 157 and 158 both dated 25.02.2009 (Annexure-2 and 2/1), whereby the petitioners have been relieved from their services by the respondent No. 2 and further for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service with all arrear and current salary since January, 2008.

(2.) The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that in terms of direction as contained in letter no. 846 dated 16.07.2005 and letter no. 1046 dated 24.08.2005, issued by the Secretary, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi and also in the light of direction provided by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in letter No. 4569 dated 5.7.2002, a list was prepared by the respondent No. 2 vide appointment order under Memo No. 37 dated 11.01.2008 for the purpose of appointment of Lady Supervisors for new child Development Projects for a temporary period of one year and the name of the petitioners figures at serial no. 16 and 42 respectively in the said list of selected Lady Supervisors. It has been further averred that in the aforesaid Office Order dated 11.1.2008, the respondent no. 2 appointed as many as 54 Lady Supervisors including the petitioners. However, against the name of both the petitioners, the word "provisional" has been mentioned. It has been further stated that consequent upon such selection and by appointment vide order dated 11.01.2008, the petitioners joined in their respective posts of Lady Supervisors and despite regular and continuous work rendered by them since January, 2008, the petitioners have not been paid any salary for the duties rendered by them and ultimately by impugned letters both dated 25.02009, the respondent no. 2 purported to have removed the petitioners from their services. It has been categorically submitted that none of the petitioners has been provided with any opportunity to explain the circumstances nor any show cause notice was issued to them and the petitioners did not get any opportunity to see the contents of purported letters referred to the impugned orders nor copies thereof have been provided to them. The petitioners, left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, have been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the impugned orders of relieving are hit by the doctrine of hire and fire. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned orders also suffer on account of non-compliance of minimum requirement of law to follow the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that although the persons who are having lesser qualification and sincerity than that of the petitioners have been allowed to retain the posts, whereas, the petitioners have been singled out without explaining any valid and proper reason. Learned counsel further submits that from bare perusal of last sentence of the impugned letters, it would be evident that the respondent no. 2 removed the petitioners only on presumption and assumption without following the principle of natural justice and the impugned letters are wholly unlawful, unjust, improper and without authority in law. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned letters are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners being the offspring of a tribal lady cannot be deprived from getting the benefits of members of tribe.