AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.10.2018, whereby her selection has been cancelled with immediate
effect.
Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner inviting Court’s attention towards the requisite facts, submitted that petitioner applied for the post of
Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) subjects Science-Maths for TSP area and was duly selected under the category of Outstanding Sports Person, pursuant
to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018.
Having provided the appointment and joining to the petitioner, the respondents scrutinized petitioner’s documents and found that the petitioner
was not fit to be appointed under the category of Outstanding Sports Person.
A notice dated 11.10.2018 came to be issued eliciting her response within a period of seven days.
It has been pointed out by Mr. Bhati that notice dated 11.10.2018 was posted by the respondents on 18.10.2018, which was received by the
petitioner on 22.10.2018.
Before the petitioner could furnish her response/reply to the notice aforesaid, vide order dated 25.10.2018 the Block Development Officer â€
respondent No.5 cancelled petitioner’s selection/appointment.
Impugning the order dated 25.10.2018, learned counsel argued that in view of the facts narrated above, the order impugned dated 25.10.2018
deserves to be quashed and set aside, having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner’s selection was wrongly made under the category of
Outstanding Sports Person, which is evident from the perusal of Annex.1; and that sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner, who chose not
to file reply to the notice and instead has approached this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the firm view that the respondents
have failed to afford proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The notice dated 11.10.2018 was dispatched by the respondents on 18.10.2018, which was received by the petitioner on 22.10.2018, as is evident
from perusal of Annexs.6 & 7.
Before the petitioner could file a reply/response to the notice aforesaid, the respondent No.5 has cancelled petitioner’s selection and
withdrawn the appointment order dated 01.10.2018.
Notice dated 11.10.2018 provided seven days’ time, which the respondents seem to have reckoned from the date of posting the notice i.e.
18.10.2018, whereas it ought to have been reckoned from the date of receipt.
In view of the facts noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that the order impugned dated 25.10.2018 cancelling petitioner’s
appointment is illegal and suffers from non-observance of the principles of natural justice - basic tenet of a fair adjudicatory process.
The cancellation of petitioner’s selection undoubtedly amounts to adverse civil consequence to the petitioner and thus, she was entitled to be
accorded a reasonable audience.
As an upshot of the above discussions, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the respondent No.5 is, hereby,
quashed and set aside.
The petitioner will file a reply to the notice (dated 11.10.2018) and keep herself present before the respondent No.4 on 17.03.2020, along with the
reply to the show-cause notice and supporting documents/material.
Upon hearing the petitioner and considering the response/reply so filed, the respondent No.4 shall pass a speaking order in relation to
petitioner’s eligibility as an Outstanding Sports Person.
The respondents No.4 & 5 shall serve/send a copy of the order to the petitioner.
Needless to observe that the petitioner shall have liberty to avail her remedy against such order, if passed against her.
The stay application is also disposed of.