AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) by which services of the
petitioners have been terminated by respondent No.4.
Mr.Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners' services have been terminated on the ground that they
failed to file the documents showing that they have passed Higher Secondary Examination, whereas they have passed Higher Secondary Examination and certificates were also produced, but without affording an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed.
On the other hand, Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6/State, would support the impugned
order.
None present for respondents No.3 and 4 though served.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
The petitioners were earlier working on the post of Guruji. In order to appoint them on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, they were required to
file certificates showing that they have passed Higher Secondary Examination. It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed certificates showing that they have passed Higher Secondary Examination, but respondent-Janpad Panchayat, Batouli has taken ex-parte decision and their services have been terminated though no show-cause notice was served to them. If respondent-Janpad Panchayat, Batouli was not satisfied with certificates filed by the petitioners, they could have given notice and in that event, they could have satisfied the officers that they have valid Higher Secondary
Examination passed certificates and therefore, they are eligible to be appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, as such, for want of opportunity of hearing, they have suffered prejudice.
True it is that the petitioners were asked to submit their Higher Secondary passed certificates in order to appoint on the post of Shiksha Karmi
Grade-III, which according to them, they have filed but it appears from the impugned order that nothing has been considered and holding that they have not passed Higher Secondary Examination and they could not produce necessary certificates, their services have been terminated, whereas if the authorities were not satisfied, they could have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners asking finally to produce certificates and if the petitioners fail to submit, their services could have been terminated, but that course has not been followed and without giving an opportunity of hearing,
their services have been terminated, which is in teeth of the principle of natural justice.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4 is set-aside. The matter is remitted to respondent
No.4 who after serving notices to the petitioners and after hearing them will pass a fresh order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to file additional documents in reply to show-cause.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).