THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.No.28048 of 2005 and WP.MP.No.30498 of 2005 S.Varadharajan ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Director of Elementary Education Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Kumaratchi Union Cuddalore District. ... Respondents Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.ka.No.492/D3/2004, dated 22.3.2005 and the consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.59/2005 A-1, dated 28.3.2005 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan for Mr.S.Mani For Respondents : Mrs.M.E.Raniselvam Addl. Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.ka.No.492/D3/2004, dated 22.3.2005 and the consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.59/2005 A-1, dated 28.3.2005 and quash the same.
2. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The petitioner joined as Secondary Grade Teacher in Port Novo Panchayat Union on 31.10.1985 and was thereafter transferred to Kumaratchi Panchayat Union on 1.6.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Headmaster of Elementary School on 29.6.2001.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is fully qualified for promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant as well as Headmaster of Middle School and when a vacancy arose to the post of B.T. Assistant, a panel was drawn and the petitioner was promoted as B.T.Assistant on 21.2.2005. However, the petitioner was reverted on 22.3.2005 on the ground that the promotion of the petitioner was objected to by the second respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent passed an order dated 28.3.2005, appending a copy of the order dated 22.3.2005 passed by the second respondent, reverting the petitioner. Assailing the above said orders, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order cancelling the promotion of the petitioner is unsustainable in law inasmuch as it is cryptic and a non speaking order, passed without assigning any reason whatsoever. He added that the petitioner was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant based on inclusion of his name in the panel and the impugned orders reverting him without assigning any reason and without following the bare bones of the principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reiterated the reasons that weighed with the respondent authorities in passing the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Even though notice was ordered way back in 2005, the respondents have not chosen to file a counter affidavit till date.
6. I heard Mr.P.Ganesan for Mr.S.Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.M.E.Raniselvam, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the documents available on record.
7. In the case on hand, a bare perusal of the orders impugned in the writ petition show that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned in the orders for reverting the petitioner from the promoted post. It is not even the case of the respondent authorities that such promotion was given to the petitioner by virtue of some fraud played by him or on account of any misrepresentation. That apart, it is not the case of the respondent authorities that the promotion order passed is illegal.
8. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing such order of reversion. All this only goes to show that the elementary principles of natural justice have not been followed by the respondents in passing the impugned order. It is an established principle of natural justice that whenever an order adverse to the interest of a person is proposed or is required to be passed, the person to be affected should be given a fair opportunity of hearing.
9. In the case on hand, the petitioner was promoted as B.T. Assistant on 21.2.2005 and he was reverted on 22.3.2005 on the basis of objection raised by the second respondent and, thereafter, the third respondent by proceedings dated 28.3.2005 informed the same to the petitioner.
10. No iota of reason is stated in the impugned order for reverting the petitioner from the promoted post. The orders impugned are non speaking and bereft of reasons.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions:
i. The impugned orders dated 22.3.2005 and 28.3.2005 passed by the second respondent and third respondent respectively are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent authorities;
ii. The respondent authorities shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iii. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.09.2017 vs Note:Issue order copy on 07.01.2019 Index : Yes To
1. The Director of Elementary Education Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Kumaratchi Union Cuddalore District.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs W.P.No.28048 of 2005 and WP.MP.No.30498 of 2005 11.09.2017