JUDGEMENT
I.M.Quddusi, J. -
(1.)HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/State as well as learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.)THIS writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 4th May, 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1779/2005 (Indradeo Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.), allowing the writ petition, filed by the respondent, on the ground that the writ appellants have violated the principles of natural justice in reverting back the petitioner to his original post as Poultry Vaccinator (dqDdqV OgsDlhusVj) for the reason that the respondent did not have the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (i'kq fpfdRlk {ks= lgk;d).
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was initially appointed as Poultry Vaccinator in the year 1984. Thereafter, he was sent with others for training of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer vide order dated 24.2.1995 in which it was specifically mentioned that the trainees should submit their mark sheet and the certificate of Higher Secondary/10+2 (Intermediate) passed, failing which their names shall stand cancelled. However, the respondent was appointed as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer vide order dated 19.6.1996 with other candidates, who had got one year's training. But vide order 31.12.1998 the respondent was reverted back to his substantive post of Poultry Vaccinator on the ground that he did not fulfill the minimum qualification to hold the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (i'kq fpfdRlk {ks= vf/kdkjh).
The respondent's case is that he has fulfilled the qualification as he is higher secondary passed but in the mark sheet, which has been annexed as Annexure P/1 to the writ petition, it was specifically mentioned that "A candidate for the Secondary or Higher Secondary School Examination who fails in one subject by not more than 5% marks or by not more than 5% in two subjects but passed in aggregate shall be allowed to pass and placed in the appropriate division."
A bare reading of the above quoted regulation shows that there is difference between the examination of 'Secondary' and Higher Secondary'. The mark sheet submitted by the respondent is only of 'Secondary School Examination'. Besides this, at the time when the respondent entered into getting training he was given an opportunity to submit his certificate and as such it cannot be said that the respondent was not given opportunity to submit certificate. Before this Court also the respondent has failed to show that he had passed the Higher Secondary Examination. The mark-sheet, as already mentioned, which is for Secondary Examination, cannot be treated as of Higher Secondary Examination.
Therefore, when the person i.e. the respondent, does not have requisite qualification to hold the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, it cannot be said that he was wrongly reverted back to his substantive post.
(3.)LEARNED Counsel appearing for the writ appellants/State relies on a decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors.1 whrein the Apex Court in paragraph 26 has laid down as under:
26. This brings us to the question as to whether the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillars of natural justice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However, whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarily in a case of this nature the same should be complied with. Visitor may in a given situation issue notice to the employee who would be effected by the ultimate order that may be passed. He may not be given an oral hearing, but may be allowed to make a representation in writing.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent place reliance on a decision in Prakash Ratan Sinha v. State of Bihar and Ors.2 in which in paragraphs 9, 20, 21 and 22 the Apex Court held as under:
The respondent is an instrumentality of the State, and therefore, all its administrative decisions would be subject to the doctrine of equality and fair play, as incorporated in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice. This principle of law has been laid down by this Court in a catena of cases.
20. We fail to understand the logic adopted by the Division Bench. The reason being that it is the case of the appellant that on a recommendation made by the Circle Promotion Committee, he was regularly promoted to the post of accounts clerk, since he had the necessary qualification and experience and it is his further case that though he was appointed as a daily wager, right from his induction, he was directed to discharge the work of accounts clerk. It is also his case that on the recommendation made by Circle Promotion Committee, the incharge Chief Electrical Engineer had passed an order approving the recommendation and granting promotion to the appellant to the post of accounts clerk. 21. However, it is the case of the respondents that the Circle Promotion Committee had only recommended the change of nomenclature from that of daily wager to that of accounts clerk and that it is not a case of regular promotion. It is their further case, even assuming it is a case of promotion, the same has been done without following the prescribed procedure and also by ignoring the claim of several other employees and therefore, the respondents were justified in canceling the order passed by the incharge Chief Electrical Engineer. 22. In our view, these are all disputed facts and the respondents without affording an opportunity of hearing, could not have taken any administrative decision unilaterally. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court is not justified in concluding "useless formality theory" need not have been followed by the respondents. 9. A bare perusal of the above quoted paragraphs in the case of Prakash Ratan Sinha (supra) would show that the said case is related to promotion in accordance with the Rules applicable in that case, but in the instant case there is no channel of promotion from the post of Poultry Vaccinator to the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer and the requisite qualification has been fixed for the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer and as such the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Prakash Ratan Sinha (supra) is not applicable in the case on hand. Further, in the paragraph 20 of the above decision in Prakash Ratan Sinha (supra), it has been mentioned that the appellant of that case was having minimum requisite qualification, which is not applicable in the instant case.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.