Devendra Kumar Arora, J.@mdashBy means of present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.05.2003 and consequential order dated 28.05.2003, as contained in Annexures-7 and 10 to the writ petition. The petitioners have further sought a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 19.05.2003 and consequential order dated 28.05.2003.
2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the pleadings of the writ petition are as under: On 11.09.2002, an advertisement was published in Daily Newspaper "Rashtriya Chinha" for filling up the vacancies of class-III and IV posts outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission under the backlog quota. The petitioners applied for the post of Messenger after completing all the formalities as per the advertisement. The call letters were issued to the petitioners informing the dates for interview as 12.05.2003 and 13.05.2003. The petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee on the date fixed for interview and were selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The appointment letters were issued to the petitioners by the respondent No. 4 on 14.05.2003 directing them to submit their joining to the Block Development Officer concerned within 15 days. In pursuance of the appointment letter, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 joined on 17.05.2003 and petitioner No. 3 joined on 19.05.2003.
3. After joining of the petitioners on their respective posts, one Sri Bhagwati Prasad Nishad, the District President of Bahujan Samaj Party made a complaint to the Chief Minister of U.P. and a copy of the same was sent to the District Magistrate, Mahrajganj levelling allegations on the Selection Committee that the selection has been made without taking any interview, no cycle race was done and the merit list was not published as well as due to delayed dispatch of the registered call letters, the same could not be received in time by all the candidates.
4. The District Magistrate, Mahrajganj on 19.05.2003 sent a letter to the Chief Development Officer, Mahrajganj directing that appointment letters be not issued and if the letters have been issued, the charge be not given to the candidates appointed on the said post. The District Magistrate also directed for enquiry on the complaint. The services of the petitioners were terminated by oral orders. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners approached this Court.
5. The submission of Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners possessed all the prescribed requisite qualifications and were selected after due satisfaction of the duly constituted Selection Committee. The eligibility and suitability of petitioners were considered by the Selection Committee and its decision is final. It is further submitted that pursuant to the letter dated 19.05.2003 of the District Magistrate, the Chief Development Officer, Mahrajganj directed the District Development Officer, Mahrajganj to inquire into the matter and submit his report. The District Development Officer after inquiry submitted his report on 20.05.2010 to the Chief Development Officer. The District Development Officer, Mahrajganj in his report stated that the entire proceedings of selection were done in accordance with law and the complaint is false.
6. The further submission of Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as per Rule 10 of the U.P. Group D Employees Service Rules, 1985 for recruitment on the post of Messenger, the academic qualification is Class V. Rule 10(6) provides that candidate must know cycling. On the complaint of a political person, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their valuable rights and the action of the District Magistrate is illegal, arbitrary and influenced by the political consideration as well as in violation of principles of natural justice.
7. Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petitioner submitted that on the complaint of Sri Bhagwati Prasad Nishad, District President of Bahujan Samaj Party, Mahrajganj dated 09.05.2003 the District Magistrate, Mahrajganj vide letter dated 19.05.2003 directed the Chief Development Officer to enquire the matter and in the meantime no appointment letters be issued to the selected candidates and if same has been issued the joining be not given.
8. After affording opportunity to the District Development Officer, the Chief Development Officer submitted his report to the District Magistrate on 22.05.2003 and the District Magistrate while agreeing with the enquiry report of Chief Development Officer directed for cancellation of selection and holding of fresh selection in his supervision.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that there is no illegality in the directions of District Magistrate and, therefore, writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.
10. I have considered the rival submissions of Learned Counsel for parties and gone through the record of the writ petition.
11. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioners in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.09.2002 applied for the post of Messenger and after the recommendation of the duly constituted Selection Committee the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 14.05.2003. As per the averments of the writ petition the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 joined on the post in question 17.05.2003 and petitioner No. 3 joined on 19.05.2003.
12. From perusal of the order dated 28.05.2003, it is evident that the District Magistrate while agreeing with the enquiry report of the Chief Development Officer directed for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners and further directed for holding of fresh selection. The order dated 28.05.2003 no where reveals that any opportunity has been afforded to the petitioners before passing the same. The impugned order only discusses the report of the Chief Development Officer in which it has been mentioned that the Chief Development Officer afforded opportunity to the District Development Officer only. Thus, it is admitted position that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner prior to the cancellation of their selection and the petitioners have been restrained from functioning orally on the basis of directions of the District Magistrate.
13. The Hon''ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar controversy in the matter of
8. The High Court committed serious error in upholding the order of the Government dated 13.02.1980 in setting aside the appellant''s appointment without giving any notice or opportunity to him. It is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. The order of appointment conferred a vested right in the appellant to hold the post of Tax Inspector, that right could not be taken away without affording opportunity of hearing to him. Any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is rendered void. There is no dispute that the Commissioner''s Order had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, therefore the order was illegal and void. The High Court committed serious error in upholding the Commissioner''s Order setting aside the appellant''s appointment. In this view, Orders of the High Court and the Commissioner are not sustainable in law.
14. Similarly in the case of
3. ...It is not necessary to go into all these questions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the appellants should have been given an opportunity of hearing before cancelling their appointments. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to them. It is well settled that no order to the detriment of the appellants could be passed without complying with the rules of natural justice. We set aside the impugned order of cancellation dated November 3, 1988 on this short ground. As suggested by learned Solicitor General, we direct that the Secretary (Education), Government of Bihar or to other person nominated by him should give an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and thereafter give a finding as to whether the appellants were validly appointed as Assistant Teachers. He shall also determine as to whether any of the teachers joined their respective schools and for how much duration. In case some of them joined their schools and worked, they shall be entitled to their salary for such period.
15. From the aforesaid analysis, it is evident that the petitioners have been deprived of their appointments in utter violation of principles of natural justice and the valuable vested right of the petitioners have been taken away by the respondents without affording any opportunity. The impugned order dated 28.05.2003, by which the selection of the petitioners on the post of Messenger has been cancelled, deserves to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed, so far as it relates to the petitioners.
16. Since this Court by means of order dated 05.06.2003 restrained the respondents from holding any selection on the post against which the petitioners were appointed. The concerned respondents are further directed to allow the petitioners to resume their duties on the post of Messenger forthwith. However, it is made clear that the petitioners will not be entitled for any back wages.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
