Manoj Charpota vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in pursuance of the selection process held by the respondent-Panchayati Raj Department vide the Advertisement dated 14.02.2013. The petitioner was appointed vide the order (Annex. 6) dated 01.07.2013 issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-Banswara.

The petitioner was served with a notice (Annex. 10) dated 02.12.2013 alleging therein that at the time of seeking appointment in the on-line application form submitted by the petitioner, the qualification shown by him was different from the documents produced before the respondents authority, namely, the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-Banswara. The petitioner gave his explanation and representation in pursuance of said show cause notice vide Annex. 11 dated 06.12.2013, in which he explained that the educational qualification of senior secondary obtained by him was from National Open School, New Delhi, which is recognized by the respondents, but inadvertently due the typing error, in the on-line application form submitted by him, instead of National Open School, New Delhi, ''Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, was mentioned inadvertently.

Without considering the said explanation and inadvertently omission or typing error, the respondent No. 3-Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Banswara, District: Banswara, passed the impugned termination order (Annex. 12) dated 11.12.2013 terminating the services of the petitioner during the probation period. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

While issuing notices to the respondents, a coordinate bench of this Court by an interim order dated 18.12.2013 stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 11.12.2013 terminating the services of the petitioner on the post of LDC and thus the petitioner is still continuing in the said services.

The respondent-State has filed reply to the writ petition and learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, argued the case on behalf of respondent-State. However, no proper explanation has been furnished justifying the passing of the impugned termination order though for the error committed by the petitioner was explained in his written explanation appears to be correct.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned termination order (Annex. 12) dated 11.12.2013 appears to have been passed by the respondent, Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-Banswara, without application of mind to the explanation and representation furnished by the petitioner and he has merely reiterated the same language of the show cause notice given to the petitioner that documents in relation to the qualification are different from the particulars given in the on-line application furnished by him and the name of the institution from where the petitioner passed the 12th standard examination was wrongly shown as ''Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan'' instead of ''National Open School, New Delhi''. There is no dispute from the side of the respondents that the eligibility qualification of the petitioner even from National Open School, New Delhi, makes him entitled and eligible to get the appointment. The impugned order dated 11.12.2013 is, therefore, held to be without any reason and not sustainable and same is liable to be quashed. For the callousness and negligence of the respondent Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-Banswara, he also deserves to be saddled with costs to be borne by him personally.

Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned terminate order (Annex. 12) dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-Banswara, is quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 3-Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-Banswara shall pay a costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within two months. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.