'Dismissed After 2 Yrs Without Any Opportunity For Hearing': Chattisgarh HC Sets Aside Cancellation Of Anganbadi Sahayika's Appointment
The Chhattisgarh High Court has struck down an administrative decision to cancel the appointment of an 'anganbadi sahaika' who was ousted from the said post after the manner of appointment of a similarly placed employee was called into question in a distinct proceeding. The single-judge bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri noted that the CEO, Janpad Panchayath erred in removing the petitioner...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has struck down an administrative decision to cancel the appointment of an 'anganbadi sahaika' who was ousted from the said post after the manner of appointment of a similarly placed employee was called into question in a distinct proceeding.
The single-judge bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri noted that the CEO, Janpad Panchayath erred in removing the petitioner from service without granting an opportunity of hearing, solely based on the Collector's directions in another employee's removal order to reassess similar appointments without adhering to the guidelines for marking.
“…When the petitioner was appointed by order dated 23/11/2011 and certain right had accrued in her favour, how after two years without any opportunity of hearing her services were terminated, has not been explained…”, the court noted that there was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice in the case of petitioner employed at Kumhalori.
The petitioner, Anusuiya, was appointed in 2011 as an anganbadi sahaika in Kumhalori village. A woman named Sarita was also appointed in another ward of the same village in the same capacity. An unsuccessful candidate, Anita, challenged the appointment of Sarita on various grounds, one of which was that the guidelines stipulating awarding certain marks for certain candidates were not followed by the authority.
“…The direction given by the Collector by its order dated 30/03/2013 to enquire into the matter to the CEO in a dispute which was in between Anita Mahar and Sarita, additional omnibus direction was given to carry out the scrutiny in entirety is the substratum to conduct the enquiry….”, the court observed.
Deeming the appointment illegal, Sarita was removed from her post according to the Collector's order. Based on the said order, the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon deemed the appointment of Anusuiya as illegal too since she was wrongly given preference over other candidates.
“..it appears that there was a clear violation of the rules of natural justice and even the matter was subject of challenge and both the Collector and the Commissioner both the authorities deliberated on a different issue without touching the nucleus of the challenge”, the bench sitting at Bilaspur observed about what transpired in petitioner's appeal and revision proceedings after placing reliance on Ranjit Thakur v Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611.
“…When the right has accrued in favour of a candidate, dispensing the services without giving any opportunity of hearing clearly violates rules of natural justice….”, the court further observed by relying on Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8 SCC 519.
Accordingly, the court set aside the orders passed in detriment to the petitioner by the Janpad Panchayat CEO, Collector and Commissioner in 2013. The court instructed the Janpad Panchayat CEO to scrutinise the petitioner's appointment again after granting her an opportunity for a hearing.
For Petitioner: Advocate Abhishek Sharma
For Respondent/State: Addl. AG R.K Gupta
For Respondent No.6: Advocate Pallav Mishra
Case Title: Anusuiya Bai v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case No: WPS No. 2927 of 2015