S.K. Tiwari vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Collector, Narsinghpur directing all the Chief Executive Officers of Janpad Panchayats Kareli, Chanwarpatha, Chichali, Narsinghpur, Saikheda and Gotegaon to remove the erstwhile instructors and supervisors of the non-formal education programme who have been engaged on contract basis as contract teachers. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Janpad Panchayat, Gotegaon in compliance of the order of the Collector, terminating the contractual appointment of the petitioner.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the rules, the Janpad Panchayat is the competent authority to appoint and examine such cases but in the instant case the Janpad Panchayat without examining the case of the petitioner, has terminated his contract in compliance of the directions issued by the Collector on 30.03.2013 who is not competent to do so, as he is neither the appointing authority nor appellate authority under the provisions of service rules governing the services of the petitioner. It is further submitted that under the provisions of the M.P. Panchayat Contractual Teacher (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2005, special exemption has been granted to the Instructors and the Supervisors of the non-formal Education Programme and they have been permitted to be engaged only on passing an entrance examination.

It is submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner had passed the entrance examination as provided under the rules and was accordingly appointed and in such circumstances, his appointment is not in violation of the provisions of rules, 2005 inspite of which and without examining the aforesaid aspects, the Janpad Panchayat concerned has directly cancelled the order of appointment of the petitioner in compliance of the directions issued by the Collector on 30.03.2013 which is not in accordance with law and in such circumstances, the petitioner prays for quashing the directions issued by the Collector dated 30.03.2013 and the order dated 10.05.2013 terminating thereby the appointment of the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that in a similar petition which had been registered as W.P. No. 6429/13, this court by order dated 08.04.2013 directed the authority concerned i.e. Janpad Panchayat to examine the claim of the petitioner by giving due opportunity of hearing before passing any order and had permitted the petitioner therein to continue in service till the aforesaid exercise had been completed and therefore, similar directions be issued in the present petition also.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the issue raised in the present petition needs to be examined by the competent authority/Janpad Panchayat, which has not done so and has passed a cyclostyle order without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In the circumstances, keeping the concept of parity in mind, in view of the order passed in W.P. No. 6429/13 dated 08.04.2013, the present petition is also disposed of in the similar terms with a direction to the effect that on petitioner producing a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition before the Janpad Panchayat, Gotegaon within three weeks from today, the said Janpad Panchayat shall take up further proceedings in respect of the matter, consider the issues raised by the petitioner and thereafter take a decision by passing a reasoned order without being influenced by and totally ignoring the directions issued by the Collector dated 30.03.2013 and till the aforesaid exercise is completed by the Janpad Panchayat, Gotegaon, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to work.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. C.C. as per rules.