All India Ayurvedic Teachers Association and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Alok Aradhe, J.@mdashIn this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned orders dated 24.7.2013 passed by respondent No. 1 by which the order dated 19.7.2013 by which services of the petitioners which were regularised on the post of Lecturers in different subjects in Government Autonomous Ayurved Colleges was annulled. For the facility of reference, the facts from writ petition No. 13323/13 (s) are being referred to.

2. Large number of posts of Lecturers reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category were lying vacant in various Government Autonomous Ayurved Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The aforesaid vacancies could not be filled up despite repeated attempts made by the respondents. On account of non-fulfillment of the vacancies, the colleges were facing the threat of de-recognition by Central Council of Indian Medicine. In order to ensure that Government Autonomous Ayurved Colleges continue to be recognized by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, the State Government took a decision to fill up the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category on contractual basis from amongst the candidates belonging to general category. Accordingly, an order was issued on 4.2.2010 by which permission was granted to fill up the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category candidates by appointing the general category candidates on contract basis. The said order contained an express stipulation that the services of the candidates belonging to general category shall be regularised on availability of general category posts.

3. An advertisement dated 4.5.2010 was issued by the Director, Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy by which applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment on the posts of Lecturers on contract basis in different subject in various Government Autonomous Ayurved Colleges. The petitioners submitted their applications for appointment as Lecturers on contract basis in different subjects. The petitioners participated in the process of selection which consisted of interview and examination of testimonials. It is the case of the petitioners that on the basis of their performance in the interview and keeping in view their educational qualifications, they were selected for appointment as Lecturers on contract basis.

4. On the recommendation of the duly constituted Selection Committee, the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers on contract basis and an order of appointment was issued on 8.6.2010. The period of contract of the petitioners was extended from time to time. By an order dated 22.9.2010, respondent No. 2 circulated model roster for all the Government Autonomous Ayurved Colleges and accordingly, direction was issued for filling up the posts as per the sanctioned roster.

5. As per the roster prepared by the Director, Ayush, large number of posts belonging to general category candidates in different discipline became available in various Government Autonomous Ayurved Colleges. It is the case of the petitioners that after due scrutiny and their examination with regard to entitlement for regularisation on the post of Lecturers, the services of the petitioners were regularised by the order of the State Government dated 19.7.2013 in the pay-scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- + annual grade pay of Rs. 5400/- in their respective disciplines. On 20.7.2013, the order of appointment was issued and the petitioners submitted their joining. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 24.7.2013, the order of regularisation of services of the petitioners were cancelled. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned orders have submitted that the impugned orders are cryptic in nature in as much as, no reasons have been assigned in it. It is further submitted that initially in respect of each Ayurvedic college, which is an autonomous college, separate roster for reservation was prepared institution-wise on the basis of which, the services of the petitioners were regularised. However, subsequently the State Government has prescribed centralised roster wherein, several posts in different discipline became available for reservation and on the said basis, a ground has been taken in the return that the services of the petitioners were regularised without following the roster. It is also pointed out that the centralised roster which was subsequently prescribed is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 1610/14 (Dr. Shriram Dwivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) in which an interim order has been granted. It is urged that the impugned orders have been passed in patent violation of principles of natural justice in as much as, neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and the petitioners are sought to be visited with adverse consequences. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Hirendra Pal Singh etc., (2011) 5 SCC 305 : (2011) 2 SCC(L&S) 73 and decision of this Court in the case of Radha Mohan Goswami and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2004(2), M.P.H.T. 49.

7. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that since the appointment of the petitioners was made without following the roster, therefore, the orders of regularisation of services have rightly been cancelled. It is further submitted that principles of natural justice have no application in the fact situation of the case as if even an opportunity of hearing would have been afforded to the petitioners, the same would tantamount an exercise in futility. In support of aforesaid submission, reference has been made on decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Others, AIR 1981 SC 136 : (1980) 4 SCC 379 : (1981) 1 SCR 746 , Canara Bank and Others Vs. Shri Debasis Das and Others, AIR 2003 SC 2041 : (2003) 3 JT 183 : (2003) 2 LLJ 531 : (2003) 3 SCALE 220 : (2003) 4 SCC 557 : (2003) SCC(L&S) 507 : (2003) 2 SCR 968 : (2003) 2 SLJ 345 : (2003) 2 UJ 1129 : (2003) AIRSCW 1561 : (2003) 2 Supreme 793 , Aligarh Muslim University and Others Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 : (2001) 91 FLR 28 : (2000) 9 JT 502 : (2000) 6 SCALE 125 : (2000) 7 SCC 529 : (2000) SCC(L&S) 965 : (2000) 2 SCR 684 Supp : (2000) AIRSCW 2976 : (2000) 6 Supreme 1 and Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy, AIR 2005 SC 2090 : (2005) 4 CompLJ 249 : (2005) 2 ESC 225 : (2005) 105 FLR 630 : (2005) 4 JT 40 : (2005) 2 LLJ 461 : (2005) 6 SCC 321 : (2005) SCC(L&S) 833 : (2005) 61 SCL 144 : (2005) 3 SCR 81 : (2005) 2 SLJ 463 : (2005) AIRSCW 2005 : (2005) 3 Supreme 492 .

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The singular question which arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the right which had accrued to the petitioners on orders of regularisation being issued in their favour and which was duly acted upon could be unilaterally taken away by the respondents without compliance with principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are regarded as important procedural safeguard against undue exercise of power by an authority. The chances of an administrative authority taking decision in ignorance of other factors are reduced as if the hearing is given to the person concerned who will bring all the issues involved in the situation. In such a case the decision making authority shall take into account all the relevant facts and issues involved in the decision and would come to a right decision. Thus, the principles of natural justice is considered as an effective method to protect the interest of individual as he can participate in administrative process affecting him.

9. It is well settled in law that in all cases of violation of principles of natural justice, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not necessarily interfere and set at naught the action taken by an authority. The Court has to consider the genesis of the action contemplated, the reasons thereof and the reasonable possibility of prejudice while considering the effect of violation of the principles of natural justice. See: The State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association and Others, AIR 2002 SC 1223 : (2002) 93 FLR 657 : (2002) 2 JT 419 : (2002) LabIC 965 : (2002) 2 LLJ 820 : (2002) 2 SCALE 367 : (2002) 3 SCC 302 : (2002) 2 SCR 121 : (2002) 2 SLJ 403 : (2002) AIRSCW 1010 : (2002) 2 Supreme 252 .

10. In the instant case, admittedly, an order dated 4.2.2010 was issued by the State Government by which permission was granted to fill up the posts reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category by appointing general category candidates on contract basis in pursuance of which an advertisement was issued on 4.2.2010 passed by Director, Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy, which applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment on the posts of Lecturers on contract basis in different subjects in Government Autonomous Ayurved Colleges. Admittedly, the petitioners participated in the process of selection and were appointed on contract basis. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners have taken a stand in the writ petition that initially an institution wise roster was prepared by the Director, Ayush, and on the said basis, decision was taken to regularise the services of the petitioners. However, subsequently, the centralised roster was prescribed by the respondents. The aforesaid averment of fact has not been controverted by the respondents in the return. It is also not in dispute that the centralised roster system adopted by the respondents is subject matter of challenge in W.P. No. 1610/2014 in which an ad-interim order has been passed granting stay of the system of centralised roster adopted by the respondents.

11. Admittedly, in the instant case, the right had accrued to the petitioners when an order of regularisation was passed in their favour. The aforesaid right is sought to be taken away unilaterally that too, without assigning any reasons by the respondents in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. Undoubtedly, the prejudice has been caused to the petitioners as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to them. The petitioners, in view of the stand taken by them before this Court, which has not been rebutted by the respondents in the return, may have a plausible defence to putforth before the authority. However, the same is required to be considered and dealt with by the competent authority.

12. In view of preceding analysis, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents would be at liberty to issue notice to the petitioners indicating the ground on which their order of regularisation is sought to be cancelled and shall pass a fresh order containing reasons in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to submit replies. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioners and it would be open to the competent authority to examine the cases of individual petitioners on its own merit.

13. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.