Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52331 of 2006
Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Singh
Respondent :- D.I.O.S. Azamgarh And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Upadhyaya,B.R.Singh,Indra Raj Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Mishra,O.P. Rai,R.P. Dubey
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised list. None present on behalf of the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Facts in brief of the present case are that in the city of Azamgarh, there is an institution known as Rajendra Smark Inter College, Sethwal (Rani ki Sarai) which is duly recognized under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is also governed under U.P. Act No.24 of 1971, U.P. Act No.5 of 1982.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the institution in question, there was lying vacant of one post in Hindi Lecturer and after completing the procedure, the petitioner was finally selected for the said post and appointment letter was issued on 03.08.2006 to the petitioner. He joined on 07.08.2006 on the said post. While he was working and discharging his duties, without providing any opportunity to him, he was accommodated in other instituted by the order dated 31.08.2006 and thereafter, consequential order dated 08.09.2006, he was terminated from his services on the ground that he was given illegal appointment on the said post by way of direct recruitment as the same was reserved for scheduled category.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to passing of the impugned order, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forward his version, as such, the same is in violation of principal of natural justice.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasoning given by D.I.O.S. in the impugned order dated 31.08.2006 that the post of Hindi Lecturer on which the petitioner was appointed is reserved for scheduled category is contrary to law as laid down by this Court in the case of Heera Lal vs. State of U. P. and others, 2010 (3) ESC 2091 (All) (FB) and the same is liable to be set aside.
Learned Standing Counsel while supporting the impugned order submits that as the post in question does not fall within the category of direct recruitment, so the petitioner was wrongly appointed on the post of Hindi Lecturer. So, taking into consideration the said fact as well as the fact that the post in question is reserved for scheduled category, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. From the material on record, the position which emerges out is that impugned order passed without providing any opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice because it is well settled that denial of natural justice in a modern society is not acceptable. India has a progressive society and a modern constitution. Natural justice is a parameter of all the modern constitution of the world.
It is difficult to define natural justice. I find that Black J has most aptly described it as" Natural justice understandably meant no more than justice without the adjective" ( Green V Blake,[1948]IR 242). Justice Krishna Iyer in Mohinder Singh Gill v The Chief Election Commissioner: (1978) 1 SCC 405 has traced its root in Kautilya's Arthasastra in following terms, "Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam -- and of Kautilya's Arthasastra -- the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system."
In the case of Bhagwan Shukla, v. Union of India and others 1994 (6) SCC 154 wherein paragraph no.3 (relevant portion)held as under:-
"The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequence but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being hears. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequence should be passed without putting the employee concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant."
Further, in the case of Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. JT 2012 (10) SC 476, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph no.3 held as under:-
"The principles of natural justice embody the right to every person to represent his interest to the court of justice. Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to represent his/its case is unacceptable under the principles of natural justice."
Further, from the material on record, it is also transpired that in view of the interim order dated 20.09.2006 passed by this Court, the petitioner is still working and discharging his duties For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 31.08.2006 as well as 08.09.2006 passed by opposite party nos.1 and 4 respectively are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the opposite party no.1 to pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to place his version by way of written submission, thereafter, the same be decided on merit. The said exercise shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
For a period of four months or till the passing of the appropriate order by the opposite party no.1, whichever is earlier, petitioner is allowed to continue his services in pursuance to the interim order dated 20.09.2006.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Mahesh