Recruitment Rules Can't Be Applied Retroactively, Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside Employee's Termination Order

Background Facts

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta on 01.04.2007. She was working under the Department of Women and Child Development as Aanganbadi Karyakarta Centre- Yampur for a period of 7 years. She was terminated from service vide order dated 16.07.2015 as she was native of Village Murdanda and not of Yampur. Thus, violated Clause 1.5 of the Guidelines/Recruitment Rules, which states that the applicants must be of the resident of the village, where Aanganbadi is situated and the posts are advertised for.

In the year of 2014-2015 advertisement was published for inviting applications for the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta in Village- Murdanda. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for this post. Petitioner has also filed no objection certificate dated 20.08.2014 and experience certificate by the Project Officer. On the same, she was granted six marks for experience and her name was in the second position of the seniority list.

The District Women & Child Development Officer, District- Bijapur issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating that the previous posting of petitioner to be fraud as per the selection Rule 1.5. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her reply whereby she had clearly submitted her native residence as Murdanda in her previous selection process also.

Therefore petitioner was denied the experience marks for appointment by the respondent authorities vide order dated 01.07.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed writ petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court.

It was contended by the petitioner that she is eligible to be awarded six marks of experience as Aanganbadi Karyakarta. And she stated that she had not suppressed any information regarding her native residence and had submitted her native certificate as resident of village Murdanda, which states that she has not committed any fraud.

On the other hand it was contended by the respondents that the Clause 1.4 of the Guidelines/Recruitment Rules states that such Aaganbadi Karyakarta/ Sahayika who have been dismissed from the services earlier on the ground of irregularities would not be entitled for second recruitment. The petitioner while working as Aaganbadi Karyakarta in the Centre Yampur, was terminated from service, which is disqualification for the fresh recruitment. Also that in the year 2007, the petitioner had applied for the post of Aaganbadi Karyakarta at the Centre Yampur, which is in violation of Clause 1.5 of the guidelines.

It was further highlighted that District Programme Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted its report stating that the petitioner was the resident of Village- Murdanda, whereas she got selected in the Aaganbadi Centre Yampur, which is a violation of the guidelines, therefore, she is not entitled for the marks for experience.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the respondent's contention regarding the petitioner's previous appointment, obtained through fraud or by suppressing information about her native place, was incorrect. It was clear from no objection certificate dated 20.08.2014 where petitioner's native place was mentioned as village-Murdanda.

It was further observed by the court that at the time of petitioner's appointment in the year of 2007, when she was appointed as Aanganbadi Karyakarta, many other similarly situated Aanganbadi Karyakartas were posted in other villages as Aanganbadi Karyakartas, who are also currently working on the said post.

It was found by the court that the ground on which the service of the petitioner was terminated from her previous post, is not clear from termination order dated 16.07.2015.

It was held by the court that appointment of the petitioner was in the year 2007 whereas the guidelines were issued on 02.04.2008, therefore guidelines of 2008 could not be retroactively applied to her 2007 appointment. Therefore the termination order dated 16.07.2015 with regard to the petitioner was set aside by the court.

It was ordered by the court to the respondents to inquire the case of the petitioner on previous guidelines before the 2008 Guidelines/Recruitment Rules or at the time of posting of the petitioner in the year 2007. If her appointment is found legal, then the respondent shall reinstate the petitioner in service as per previous appointment order of 2007.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case No. : WPS No. 3654 of 2015

Counsel for the Petitioner : Anubhav Vatsa, Advocate appears on behalf of Atul Pandey, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : R. N. Pusty, G.A.