Kunj Behari Sharma vs State and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—With the consent of parties, the matter is finally decided at this stage.

Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order of his termination Ann.6 dated 6th March, 2007 from the post of Senior Teacher [English] on the premise that benefit of three bonus marks has wrongly been given to him on account of his participation in Debate Competition at the State level.

Petitioner applied for the post of Senior Teacher in pursuance of advertisement dated 2nd November, 2003 [Ann.2] and placed Certificate [Ann.3] of his participation in State Level Competition in the year 2000-01. After due consideration of his eligibility and being in order of merit, secured 75.56% marks and was at No. 12 in general category was appointed as Senior Teacher in the department of Sanskrit Education vide order dated 22nd December, 2006 [Ann.4] - pursuant to which, petitioner joined service. It appears that his merit once determined was re-examined and observed that he was not entitled for 3 bonus marks with respect to his participation in Debate Competition and in absence thereof, his name does not find place in the order of merit. As such, his services were terminated vide order Ann.6 dated 6th March, 2007.

Counsel for petitioner submits that as per circular issued by the respondents in terms of which their merit was to be determined it includes bonus marks in regard to those who have participated at the State Level Competition and as such, its an error which has been committed by the respondents in re-determining his merit at a later stage and apart from it, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing order impugned and thus, their action is in clear violation of principles of natural justice.

Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that in terms of their Policy which was circulated for the year 2000-01 for making appointment on the post of Senior Teacher. Such applicants who have participated in such Competition are not entitled for bonus marks. As such, no error has been committed and since order is so apparent there was no occasion for the respondents to serve him notice since it would be an empty formality which is not going to serve any purpose.

I have considered the submission of both the counsel and with their assistance perused the material on record.

This is not the case of respondents that petitioner was not eligible for his participation in pursuance of advertisement in question for consideration for the post of Senior Teacher. Question for consideration is whether petitioner was entitled for 3 bonus marks with regard to his participation at the State Level Competition in terms of Scheme/Circular which was circulated of the year 2000-01 for making appointment on the post of Senior Teacher.

The relevant Scheme of 2000-01 is reproduced as such:

dk;kZy; funs''kd] ek/;fed f''k{kk jktLFkku&chdkusj

&%%ifji=%%&

---

fo"k;% l= 2000&2001 es ofj"B v/;kid ds inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ ls fu;qfDr gsrq funsZ''k A

---

�d� [ksydwn izfr;ksfxrk%

[ksydwn izfr;ksfxrk dk jkT; Lrj@jk"V�h; Lrj fuEukuqlkj fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS%

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Lrj izfr;ksfxrkvks ds uke izfr;ksfxrk ds vk;kstd &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& jkT; Lrjh; 1- jkT; Lrjh; fo|ky;h 1- funs''kd] ek/;fe f''k{kk [ksydwn izfr;ksfxrk 2- laLd`r f''k{kk foHkkx 2- fo''ofo|ky; tksuy 3- fo''ofo|ky; LiksVZl cksMZ [ksydwn izfr;ksfxrk &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& [ksydwn izfr;ksfxrk ds izek.k i=ks ij ns; cksul vadks dk fooj.k ,oa izek.k i=ks ij izfrgLrk{kjdrkZ vf/kdkjh dk fooj.k%

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& izek.k i= dk Lrj ns; cksul vad izfr gLrk{kjdrkZ ofj"B v/;kid &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& jkT; 03 �v� fo|ky;h izfr;ksfxrk gsrq funs''kd] ek/; f''k{kk@mi funs''kd [ksydwn �c� laLd`r foHkkx gsrq funs''kd laLd`r foHkkx �l� fo''ofo|ky;h izfr;ksfxrk gsrq lfpo ;qfuoflZVh LiksVZl cksM+Z }kjk izfrgLrk{kfjr &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

From the relevant clause of Scheme which has been placed before this Court for perusal circulated for the year 2000-01, extract of which has been quoted supra, for making appointment on the post of Senior Teacher, it clearly emerges that those who have participated in Competition at State or National Level organized by the Director, Secondary Education/Sanskrit Education/University Sports Board are entitled for grant of three bonus marks. So far as petitioner is concerned, he has also participated at the State Level Competition which was organized by Sanskrit Education Department and duly countersigned by the respective authorities. As such, in opinion of this Court, petitioner was certainly entitled for 3 bonus marks for his participation at the State Level Competition in terms of scheme circulated by the respondents and was rightly placed in the order of merit after adding 3 bonus marks and considered for appointment in general category as Senior Teacher vide order dated 22nd December, 2006 [Ann.4].

This Court further finds substance in the submission made by counsel for petitioner that once the petitioner was appointed after his regular selection and joined service, certainly right was vested in him and that could not have been divested without affording opportunity which is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice. Thus, in opinion of this Court, the action of the respondents in terminating services of petitioner from both the counts is not legally sustainable.

Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. The order terminating services of the petitioner vide Ann.6 dated 6th March, 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. They are further directed to comply the order within two months. No order as to costs.