Anjana Sharma vs The Employment Officer, Town Employment Exchange, The Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, The State of Assam and The Oil and Natural Gas Commission

J.N. Sarma, J.—This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the cancellation of the registration of the Petitioner from Town Employment Exchange, Nazira in violation of principle of natural justice and in violation of the instructions as laid down in National Employment Service Manual Volume 1 and the Executive instructions issued from time to time.

That the registration was cancelled that will be evident from Annexure ''H'' which is a letter from the Employment Officer, Town Employment Exchange, Nazira written to Regional Director ONGC (E & R), Nazira. The Petitioner came to know of the cancellation of her registration by this letter. The brief facts are as follows:

The Petitioner is a permanent resident of Assam, The father of the Petitioner retired from the Defence Service and after retirement he joined the service in ONGC. He was transferred to ONGC, Nazira, in the year 1968. The Petitioner took her primary education at Sibsagar. She passed her Higher Secondary Examination in 1984 from Central School, Sibsagar. The Petitioner took the training of Typing and Stenography. The father of the Petitioner retired from service on 31.10.82. In the year 1985 the Petitioner approached the Respondent No. 1 i.e. The Employment Officer, Town Employment Exchange, Nazira, to get her name registered in the employment exchange. The Petitioner''s name was accordingly registered and she was allotted a Registration No. W. 11/85 and Identity Card was issued to her which was also renewed in the month of April, 1988. The next renewal date was April, 1991. In response to the advertisment by the ONGC, the Petitioner applied for being appointed in the post of Stenographer Grade-m in ONGC. The name of the Petitioner was sponsored for the said post by the Town Employment Exchange, Nazira and accordingly the Petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 30.7.88. The Petitioner appeared in the interview and she was selected by the ONGC, Her name appeared in the select List, While the Petitioner was sitting in hope that she will be appointed in the said post, she came to know as communicated carlier from Annexure-H, that her registration with the Employment Exchange has been cancelled by Respondent No. 1 and by lettr dated 19.12.88 (Annexure-H) requested the Respondent No. 4 to delete/drop her name from the selection list, On an enquiry being made by the Petitioner, the Petitioner came to know that her name was cancelled on the basis of complaint lodged by Asom Jatiyatabadi Yuva Chatra Parishad. The Petitioner approached the Respondent No. 1 and told him that the allegations levelled against him is false and baseless but nothing was done. Subsequently, on 7.11.89 the aforesaid Asom Jatiyatabadi Yuva Chaira Parishad wrote a letter to the Deputy Director of Employment that the allegations made by them earlier is false and based on incorrect information as such they withdrew all the allegations made against the Petitioner, The Asom Jatiyatabadi Yuva Chatra Parishad, Sibagar District Committee also requested the Respondent No. 1 to register her name.

It is settle 1 law that the right of a person cannot be interfered with without complying with the principle of natural justice. Hero is a case where the registration of the Petitioner was cancelled without any notice and this is in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Further, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. The other points raised by the Petitioner in this application are not required W be decided in this particular case as this application can be disposed of on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and accordingly the order by which the registration of Petitioner was cancelled by Respondent No. 1 is set aside. The Petitioner will be deemed to be duly registered with the Employment Exchange and her Identity Card and Registration Card if necessary will be duly renewed by the Respondent No. 1 even if it is already expired. This order is passed because if a fresh registration is made she will be junior in the queue and her name may not be sponsored according to the seniority which is the Rule.

The Respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit stating that they have kept one post vacant and if this is the position and if the Petitioner has been duly selected as stated by her, her case for appointment will be considered in accordance with law.

This disposes the application.