Court No. - 13
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21901 of 2007 Petitioner :- Shiv Shanker Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Its Secy. Secondary Education And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner herein this writ petition claims to be a class-IV employee of the Institution of respondent no. 4. The facts of the case are that the Director of Education created a class-IV post under the order dated 20.03.1997 and the principal, being the appointing authority for Class IV employees, issued an advertisement and thereafter proceeded to hold selection by constituting the Selection Committee. It is alleged that after the selection was held and the petitioner was adjudged to be the best candidate, the papers were forwarded to District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter to be referred as 'DIOS') for necessary approval on 13.05.1997, however, the petitioner had already been offered appointment on 11.05.1997 and submitted his joining in pursuance thereof, but the appointment order was subject to the condition that the appointment was being made subject to the approval by the DIOS. It appears that earlier the DIOS vide order dated 30.12.2000 refused to accord financial approval only on the ground that there was a ban operating in respect of appointments in question by the State Government. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2001 holding that the ground taken by the DIOS was clearly untenable in view of the legal position emerging from various judgments of this Court noted in the said judgment. The DIOS was directed to decide the matter afresh within a period of six weeks. The matter thus, remained pending before the DIOS and it took almost six years for him to decide a matter vide order dated 31.03.2007 impugned in the present writ petition.
The basic ground for challenge is that the reasons assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the financial approval for the appointment of the petitioner were not the reasons while passing the earlier order by DIOS and in the absence of any rules enforceable for laying down procedure for selection and appointment prior to 11.05.2001 in respect of group 'D' position, the minimum requirement for the selection and appointment should be in conformity with the principles enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
According to the petitioner, the entire procedure from advertisement to selection was followed and all these documents could have been very well produced and issue could have been agitated before the DIOS provided an opportunity of hearing was given before passing the order, which was not there.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is Assistant DIOS who heard the matter and thereafter, DIOS proceeded to decide the matter. In the circumstances, where a person has heard the matter and another person has decided the matter, it cannot be said that proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. For this purpose, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao, Somasankara Sastri v. Andhra PradeshState Road Transport Corporation Laws (SC) 1958 11 3, the Court held that "if one person hears and other decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality."
In the opinion of the Court, various grounds have been taken in the order impugned and for nearly six years the DIOS was sitting tight over the matter, it was an obligation cast upon him to have offered a reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter.
The concept of even handed justice at the end of those who discharge duties adjudicatory in nature or quasi judicial duties, calls for an approach for doing complete justice both procedurally and essentially on merits. In other words, justice must not only be done but seems to have been done as well.
Under the circumstances, the order impugned dated 31.03.2007 is set aside.
The matter is remitted to the DIOS to decide afresh after inviting objection from the petitioner as well as the Principal of the Institution with regard to points that he has raised in the impugned order. It is however, at the same time made clear that DIOS shall consider and decide the matter in applying the law as was applicable to such selection and appointment prior to 11.05.2001. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 IrfanUddin