AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 11/07/2011 passed by respondent No.2.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 30/11/2006 on contract basis.
Thereafter, contract of the petitioner has been renewed vide order dated 23/02/2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was adjusted against newly
created post of Computer Operator in District Hospital Chhatarpur in pursuance to the order dated 08/08/2008 passed by respondent No.2 since
the petitioner is performing her duties, functioning and responsibilities to utmost satisfaction of senior authorities. However, suddenly by respondent
No.2 an order has been issued on 11/07/2011 by which order dated 08/08/2008 has been cancelled. The said order was issued in pursuance to
the order dated 31/03/2010 passed in W.P.No.4188/2010 in which petitioner is respondent No.5. In the said writ petition, an interim order was
passed on 31/03/2010 to the effect that appointment if any made shall be provisional and subject to final decision of the writ petition. The
petitioner further submits that before passing the impugned order, no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to her. He further submits that
in the interim order, this Court has not given any direction for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.
The respondents have filed their return and submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Computer Operator at Integrated Disease
Surveillance Program in District Hospital Chhatarpur. There were two post of Computer Operator in the said program by an order dated
28/07/2008 one post of Computer Operator was reduced but petitioner being an efficient computer operator and her past service record was
outstanding, therefore, a decision has been taken to absorb her services on the post of temporary Computer Operator in the District Hospital
Chhatarpur which was upgraded and the post of Computer Operator has been sanctioned for the said upgraded hospital. Her services were
absorbed on 28/07/2008. Respondents further stated that several complaints made to the Collector by one Smt. Renu Bala and on her complaint,
an Inquiry Officer was appointed who submitted his report and, therefore, in pursuance to the said irregular selection process, appointments have
been cancelled. Although the appointment of the petitioner was not a part of irregular selection because petitioner did not participate in the same
and her services was absorbed in the year 2008 looking to the need of the work and also taking note of her past performance. Moreover, there
was an instruction issued to the respondent No.3 by respondent No.2 on 29/06/2011 giving reference of the enquiry report and also the findings
given by the Inquiry Officer, there was no option to cancel the selection of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that in the present case, an
opportunity of hearing was not required to be given because the same has been cancelled on the basis of findings given by Inquiry Officer.
Respondent No.4 has also filed reply. In the said reply, respondent No.4 has stated that in pursuance of advertisement, he has applied for
appointment on the post of contractual Computer Operator. A call letter was issued by respondent No.3. Written Test has been held on
28/02/2010 and entire examination process deal by Smt. Babita Khare, who is elder sister of the petitioner Rakhi Khare and result has been
declared on 15/03/2010 and only three candidates have obtained maximum marks i.e. 60 out of 60 in written test. Thereafter respondent No.4
submitted a complaint to the Collector regarding illegality committed in the appointment. After declaring the result, respondent No.4 filed a
W.P.No.4188/2010 in which this Court as an interim measure has directed that in the meanwhile appointment if any made shall be provisional and
subject to final decision of this petition. On the complaint of respondent No.4, the Collector Chhatarpur directed for enquiry with regard to
illegality committed in selection process and, accordingly, Deputy Collector has conducted the enquiry and found therein, the absorption of the
petitioner against the post of direct recruitment was without any order and it has been done by suppressing the facts and producing forged note
sheets. The Inquiry Officer has also given findings that the question paper which send by the Principal Government Maharaja College, Chhatarpur
was kept in custody of dealing clerk who is elder sister of the petitioner and question paper should be kept in police custody or District Treasury
Officer. Due to custody of question paper in staff of CMHO, only three selected candidates, who are close relative of employees of CMHO, have
obtained 60 marks out of 60 in written examination. The Inquiry Officer has also found that the question papers were leaked and the CMHO has
completed the selection process by manipulation of note sheets and without obtaining instruction from Collector. As per selection list it is found that
top three candidates are the close relatives of the employees working in same department or same office, whereas, Lokendra Singh Baghel who is
in serial no.1 is concerned, is brother of Shri R.B.S.,Baghel, who is posted as NMA in CMHO Chhatarpur. Mradul Pathak who is in serial No.2
is concerned, he is son of Shri K.S.Pathak, posted as M.P.W. Incharge Accountant, C.H.C. Nowgaon Chhatarpur. Dilip Kumar Suman who is in
serial No.3 is concerned, he is son of Shri Manoharlal Suman posted as Store Keeper at CMHO Office Chhatarpur. Thus, all these selected
candidates are close relatives of the persons who are working in the same department.
Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Jyoti Koshti vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
passed in W.P.No.17507/2017 and submits that if no fraud has been committed in making appointment then an opportunity of hearing is not
required to be given.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder and denied all the allegations which are made against the sister of the petitioner Smt. Babita Khare and the
enquiry which is conducted by the Deputy Collector behind the back of petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid enquiry report, the Collector directed
the Chief Medical and Health Officer to cancel the appointment of petitioner and others. Accordingly, Chief Medical and Health Officer has
cancelled the appointment order of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was appointed on the
post of Contractual Computer Operator vide order dated 30/11/2006 after facing due selection process. In pursuance to the order dated
30/11/2006, the petitioner submitted her joining on 01/12/2006. Thereafter vide order dated 08/08/2008 looking to the exceptional work
performance of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has adjusted the petitioner on the post of Samvida Computer Operator. Thereafter, The District
Hospital Chhatarpur has become a hospital comprising of 200 beds and, accordingly, 4 posts of Computer Operator was sanctioned. Out of the
said 4 posts, one post was adjusted by the petitioner and for remaining three posts, requisite advertisement was issued. In view of the aforesaid
advertisement, respondent No. 4 has also participated and has been declared unsuccessful. Thereater, respondent No.4 has filed
W.P.No.4188/2010 challenging the said selection process. The complaint which is made by respondent No.4 is against the selection of 2010 but
in the present case, the petitioner has already been adjusted and absorbed on the post of Computer Operator in the year 2008 itself. As the
petitioner has not participated in the selection of 2010, therefore, her appointment could not have been cancelled along with the appointments
which are made in the year 2010. The impugned order has been passed by respondents in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.4188/2010. By way of interim order, this Court has directed that if any appointment made shall be provisional and subject to final
decision of this petition. As the appointment of the petitioner and other candidates was cancelled, therefore, the said writ petition was withdrawn
by respondent No.4 and there was no direction for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Respondents have also in their return admitted that
the appointment of the petitioner was not a part of illegal selection because she did not proceed with the same and her services were absorbed in
the year 2008. It has further been submitted that looking to the need and exceptional work performance of the petitioner, her services have been
absorbed on the post of Computer Operator. So far as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, that would
not be applicable in the present case in light of the admission made by official respondents in their return.
Thus, in light of the admission made by respondents in their return that the appointment of the petitioner was not a part of illegal and, therefore,
respondents should have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before cancelling her appointment. In such circumstances, I deem it
proper to allow this petition by quashing the impugned order dated 11/07/2011 and the respondents are at liberty to pass a fresh order against the
petitioner after giving her proper opportunity of hearing, if necessary.