1. These petitions involve common questions on law and facts and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service on behalf of the respective respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.
2. These petitions have been filed against the order passed by respondent no.3-District Collector in M.U.N. Case No.05/2012 dated 30.06.2012 whereby, the authority has quashed Resolution No.5 dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Establishment Committee of respondent no.4-Nagarpalika and directed the Nagarpalika to undertake fresh recruitment.
3. The facts in brief are that the Establishment Committee of respondent no.4-Nagarpalika resolved to appoint selected candidates on the post of Shop Inspector by Resolution No.5 dated 20.02.2009. The said Resolution was sent to respondent no.3-authority for approval, which was duly granted vide communication dated 24.02.2009. Respondent no.2- authority also approved the Resolution vide communication dated 14.07.2009. Respondent no.5- Union challenged the said Resolution before respondent no.3-authority by filing appeal on 15.12.2010, which appears to have been numbered as M.U.N. Case No.05/2012 though it was filed in 2010.
4. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that respondent no.3-authority allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.5-Union, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order of respondent no.3-authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, it may be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent no.3- authority was not in a position to show that the petitioners were heard before passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the authority concerned is required to decide the matter afresh, after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend their case.
6. In view of the above, the petitions are partly allowed. The impugned order dated 30.06.2012 passed by respondent no.3 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the authority for decision afresh. The petitioners shall approach respondent no.3- authority, by way of application, on or before 24.09.2012 and the respondent no.3-authority shall provide reasonable opportunity to them to defend their case and shall, thereafter, render its decision on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application from the petitioners. This Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case and therefore, the authority shall decide the issue, being uninfluenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier order. With the above observations, the petitions stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs. Direct service today.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*