Chhattisgarh High Court: In a petition challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 25-02-2014 passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon (‘Collector’) and order dated 01-01-2015, passed by the Commissioner, Durg (‘Commissioner’), whereby the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and in her place Respondent 6 was appointed, Goutam Bhaduri, J., opined that when the petitioner was appointed, certain right had accrued in her favour, and how after two years without any opportunity of hearing her services were terminated, had not been explained. Thus, the Court stated that there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice and the rules or audi alteram partem was given a go-bye. When the right had accrued in favour of a candidate, dispensing the services without giving any opportunity of hearing clearly violated rules of natural justice. Thus, the Court set aside the order dated 01-01-2015 passed by the Commissioner and 25-02-2014, passed by the Collector and consequently, also set aside the appointment order of Respondent 6 and cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment.
Background
In the present case, pursuant to an advertisement dated 04-10-2010, issued by Respondent 5, petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi Sahayika for Kumhalori Village. On completion of the selection process, the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Sahayika on 23-11-2011 for Ward 2 of Kumhalori Village. Likewise, another woman/candidate namely, ‘S’ was appointed for Ward 1. Thereafter, one of the unsuccessful candidates, challenged the appointment of ‘S’ before the Collector on the ground that the marks had wrongly been given contrary to the guidelines issued by the State on 02-04-2008.
Thereafter, the removal order was passed, and the petitioner was not heard, and her services were removed on 24-06-2013 and Respondent 6 was appointed on the same date in place of the petitioner. The said appointment was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector in an appeal and the said appeal was dismissed on 25-02-2014. Subsequently, the revision against the order was also filed before the Divisional Commissioner, which was again dismissed vide order dated 01-01-2015. Thus, the present petition was filed.
Petitioner contended that the initial order by which the petitioner was removed, she was not given any opportunity of hearing and Respondent 6 was appointed. The petitioner contended that both the Collector and Commissioner failed to take into note of the said fact. Therefore, petitioner prayed that order of the Collector and Commissioner to be set aside and the appointment of Respondent 6 be annulled instead the petitioner be appointed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the perusal of the record showed that the pursual to the advertisement, the petitioner was appointed at Ward 2 of Kumhalori Village. Further, one unsuccessful candidate, challenged the appointment of ‘S’, who was appointed for Ward 1 on various grounds. While deciding the appeal filed by the unsuccessful candidate, the Collector directed that all the applications of Kumhalori village should be scrutinized and afresh orders would be passed. However, the order of appointment of the petitioner, was not under any challenge and in this dispute, the petitioner was not a party.
The Court stated that the perusal of the inspection report did not show that while such scrutiny was carried out, the petitioner, who was already appointed was given an opportunity of hearing. When the petitioner was appointed, certain right had accrued in her favour, and how after two years without any opportunity of hearing her services were terminated, had not been explained. Thus, the Court stated that there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice and the rules or audi alteram partem was given a go-bye. When the right had accrued in favour of a candidate, dispensing the services without giving any opportunity of hearing clearly violated rules of natural justice.
The Court stated that before passing any adverse order, minimum opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner. The apprehension of the petitioner that there was a bias, was to be gathered from surrounding circumstances and the necessary conclusion was required to be drawn. The term “bias” was used to denote a departure from the standing of even-handed justice. The Court applied the principles laid down in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, and opined that it appeared that there was a clear violation of the rules of natural justice and even the matter was subject of challenge. The Court stated both the authorities, Collector and the Commissioner deliberated on a different issue without touching the nucleus of the challenge.
Thus, the Court set aside the order dated 01-01-2015 passed by the Commissioner and 25-02-2014, passed by the Collector and consequently, also set aside the appointment order of Respondent 6 and cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment. The Court stated that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpand Panchayat, Rajnandgaon was at liberty to carry out the scrutiny again based on the documents which were prevailing for the petitioner’s appointment and Respondent 6 and might pass the suitable orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
[Anusuiya Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 6835, decided on 23-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Abhishek Sharma, Advocate;
For the Respondents: R.K. Gupta, Addl. AG; Pallav Mishra, Advocate.
