SANTOSHI GOSWAMI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

SMT. GEETA GUPTA, WIFE OF LATE JAGDISH GUPTA, R/0 VILLAGE - DANSARA, BLOCK - SARANGARH, DISTRICT - RAIGARH (C. G.) y| Constitution of India. Writ Petition under Article - 226/227 of the -i^w'^SiSS C1 AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION fS)No. 1367 of 2008 PETITIONER Smt. Santoshi Goswsami. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on ...-^?...day ofMarch, 2012. ,yi Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ -4-- ^f^^' l^rj • v'sg'A '- ^v '3)\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S)No. 1367 of 2008 PETITIONER Smt. Santoshi Goswsami. RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. VERSUS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4 and 6. Shri U.R.Koshaley and Shri R.S.Patel, Advocates for the respondent No. 7. (Delivered on .^sriayofMarch,2012) The petitioner assails the validity of the order dated 25.02.2008 (Annexure P/l) whereby the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, on the ground that in an appeal, filed by the respondent No. 7 against the order of cancellation of her appointment, the her appointment on the post of Angan Badi Karyakarta was maintained by the Court ofDirector, Panchayat, in Appeal Case No. 128/B/121/06-07 by order dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure P/2). The aforesaid order i.e. 30.01.2008 (Annexure P/2) is also under challenge in this petition. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Angan Badi Karyakarta at Gram Panchayat, Dansara, Block Sarangarh, District Raigarh, vide order dated 14.09.2007 and shejoined the post on 24.09.2007(Annexure -^ ..!fsa3:ay:a% 'siSh, '"» 1 S 1 J' f •• •^ / ft 'te?^' '•93-y' % '"^. P/3 colly.). Before appointment of the petitioner, the respondent No. 7 was appointed on the post of Angan Badi Karyakarta in the same village by order dated 26.10.2006. The said order was cancelled on 06.03.2007. The respondent No. 7, and other candidates, challenged the order dated 06.03.2007 in an appeal before the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, by order dated

30.01.2008, set aside the order of cancellation i.e. 06.03.2007. Thus, the initial appointment ofthe respondent No. 7 on the post of Angan Badi Karyakarta in village Dansara, was maintained. After cancellation of the appointment of the respondent No. 7, petitioner was appointed by order dated 14.09.2007 during pendency of the appeal before the Director, preferred by the respondent No. 7, when the order dated 06.03.2007 was stayed on

29.05.2007 by the respondent No. 2. Thus, after cancelladon order stayed, appointment of the petitioner was made subsequently on the post of Angan Badi Karyakarta vide order dated 14.09.2007. This is a case where despite stay of the cancellation order dated

06.03.2007, granted by the respondent No. 2 on 29.05.2007, the authorities proceeded with the appointment ofthe petitioner. This Court, by order dated 03.03.2008, stayed the effect and operation ofthe impugned order dated 25.02.2008 (Annexure P/l) whereby the appointment ofthe petitioner was cancelled and on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, it appears that the petitioner continued on the post.

4. Shri Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner was also made after r11 ' ! '"^.. " •~^:.. u^fi-S, t •'; following the due selection process, in accordance with law. Thus, the petitioner has acquired a right to the post, on being selected. The impugned order dated 25.02.2008 was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even the petitioner was not a party to the appeal pending before the Director, wherein caacellation order passed against the respondent No. 7, was quashed. On the other hand, Shri Amn Sao, leamed Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4 and 6, Shri U.R-Koshaley and Shri R.S.Patel, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7, would submit that the petitioner has not acquired any right on the post as the appointment of the petitioner was made even after stay of the order dated 06.03.2007, by the superior authority, whereby the appointment ofthe respondent No. 7, was cancelled. Thus, any action taken after 29.05.2007 was illegal and not in accordance with law. Having heard rival submissions of the parties, perused pleadings and documents appended thereto, is evident that the instant petition is a case where the petitioner was appointed during pendency ofthe appeal, preferred by the respondent No. 7, before the respondent No. 2. The cancellation order dated 06.03.2007 passed against the respondent No. 7, was stayed by order dated

25.09.2007. Thus, the appointment ofthe petitioner on the post of Angan Badi Karyakarta at village Dansara, after interim order staying the cancellation order, the respondent No. 7 was entitled to continue on the post. Subsequent appointment of the petitioner on I^ ' ! •^ the same post was not in accordance with law and the same may be held as illegal.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that the appointment ofthe petitioner on the post ofAngan Badi Karyakata vide order dated 14.09.2007 is illegal as the same was passed during pendency ofthe appeal and further, in existence ofstay ofthe cancellation order dated 06.03.2007. In such a case, compliance ofprinciples ofnaturaljustice may be dispensed with.

8. Another aspect of the principles of natural justice is the prejudice caused to the aggrieved person. The petitioner had full opportunity to put forward her case before this Court and to establish the prejudice, if any, caused to him. The petitioner has failed to establish any prejudice, all the facts are admitted, and also the appointment of the petitioner itself was illegal and void ab initio. In that view of the matter, the impugned order caimot be set aside on the ground that the principles of natural justice has not been followed.

9. This Court, in Ku. Punam & Others v. State of C.G. & Others , relying on Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Others and State of Manipur & Others v. Y.Token Singh & Others , held as under: "21. Applying well settled principle of law to the facts of the cases, there is a common thread that the principle of natural justice is not unruly horse. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, having regard to the facts situation obtained the principles of natural therein. Thus, justice may not be required to be followed in ' 2008 (2) CGLJ 366 2 (2005) 5 SCC 337 •' (2"n7) 5 SCC 65 the cases, where the facts are admitted. Secondly, that it is practically impossible or highly improbable to afford an opportunity ofhearing in the event ofquashing selection on account of irregularity committed on cancellation. Thirdly, no useful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity ofhearing." en-masse

10. In the instant case, the facts are admitted and no useful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the petitioner has suffered on account of illegal appointment, the petitioner is free to take appropriate steps for compensation or damages before the competent civil jurisdictional court, ifso advised and provided under law.

11. Resultantly, the writ petition, being shom ofmerit, is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

12. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit