R.R.Shankar Gupta Vs State and Ors.

¶1

f!(

¶2

(og)c g mg )cB cm 25w gg w) m^$ 33 §¥AQE m mwmm @gmgmm mam-a ©,An252m,3 ox 1993 (3C3^«QsyYLlw 803 5 Smnker

¶3

APPLICAIH’ : Rama Ram/Gupta sen 9f $hri.I.P.Gupta, aged 30 years, r/o Panda-Tarai. Tah. Pandariya, Distt. Bilaspur.

¶4

Vs .

¶5

' RESPONDENTS:

¶6

State ef Ma&hya Pradesh thrcugh the Secreta‘ry, Schocl Education Depttt.‘. Vallabh Bhavan. Bhapal.

¶7

Deputy Directar of Educatien, Bilaspur.

¶8

m^Asstt. District Inspécto: o£ Schcols', Parikshetra - Bttar Pandariya, Distt. Bilespur.

¶9

APPLICATION u/s 19 or THE Ammmsmmm mmumw Aer, 19%.

¶10

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

¶11

Particulars e‘f me applicant: As détailea abave in cause title.

¶12

‘ ‘

¶13

ParticaLars of the respondent-g: As .éetailed above in cause title.

¶14

3%‘Particulars c£ 'the order against gilich^{thgJapplication} is maég:

¶15

This appli‘cation'i‘s maae against tha order No.5thapana3/Ju,Pra./93~94 Bilaspur dated 7.9.$3 issued by 3156

¶16

respondent x0. 2. whereby the^ay§1icant's services have been terminated with immediate effect.

¶17

Jurisdiction of^the Tribunal: The applicant declayes that the snbject—matter ef the erder against which he wante redressalis within^the jurisdictien^ef the Tribunal.

¶18

mm W3;. JwPC5/7o$/c 1171 zoo

¶19

mm Raw?»

¶20

WWW mmm	mafam	WWW WfWR *aifcmm
	SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra M 5.4.2010	ohan Shrivastava J.
	Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, c Shri Satish Gupta, Govt.	unsel for the petitioners. Advocate for the State/ respondents.
	This petition has been dated 07.09.1993 (Annexure have been terminated with im ‘	led by the petitioner aggrieved by order 12) by which services of the petitioner ediate effect. e
	Case of the petitioner is the post of teacher and afte Selection Committee, Mungeli Junior Primary School, Bises 6/7th April, 1993 (Annexure ‘ petitioner ^on 18.6.1993 (An original certificate and creden of Sub Divisional Officer (Re petitioner ^{had also submitted} , n	that he had applied for appointment to having been interviewed by Teachers’ he was appointed as Junior Teacher in ra, Block— Pandariya vide order dated 2). Later on, a letter was issued to the ure A-5), requiring him to submit his als relating to residence etc. in the office renue) Mungeli. In compliance thereof, omicile certificates (Annexures A7, A—8 x
w	85 A—9). However, later on (Annexure A-12), services of ground ^{that he} is resident of school is,situ‘ated.	the petitioner ^were terminated on the de impugned order dated 7.9.1993 ndataria and not Bisesara Where ^the l‘ i a
\	selection, he was duly appo Contention of l‘earned i	ounsel for the petitioner is that after ted on the post of Junior Teacher in

¶21

mm aizoo

¶22

m^11313? (gafgaia)

¶23

WWW ammm	WWW (a,	WW W$IQR auifaqm
	Junior Primary School, Bisesa‘ petitioner ^{were terminated on} Bisesara. Before recording suc petitioner was entitled to du consistent with the requireme submission is that there wa candidate that he should be: submitted that there are other Bisesara and their domicile wa were appointed on the post continuing in service, wherea hostile discrimination.	ra, Block—Pandariya. ^{The services of the} ^{the allegation that he does not belong to} h a finding and ^{terminating his services,} e and proper opportunity of hearing nts of principle of natural justice. His s no such condition imposed on the domicile of Bisesara only. It is also teachers ^{who were also not from Village} s not that of particular ^{Village but they} of Village in that very school and are s petitioner has been singled out for
	Per contra, submission that it is apparent from the had procured appointment on it was found that petitioner Junior Primary School is s appointed. It is also submi opportunity of hearing ^inasm s. certificates and credentials b opportunityHto place on reco domicile, and after eonside petitioner, it was fouhd that leadingto issuance of the imp i	learned counsel for the respondents ^is ugned order itself that the petitioner the basis of ^{his domicile. Upon enquiry,} did not belong to Bisesara where the 'tuated and for which petitioner was ted that petitioner, ^was granted due ^ich as he was required to submit his issuing a notice and he was given ^full d documents to establish his place of ng the certificates submitted by the petitioner did not belong to Bisesara ned order of termination. .f p

¶24

Wm m^zoo

¶25

mm (Wu)

¶26

	mafgaamém zj¢	WW ^’%€?W %aif%manésr
	Having considered the parties, I am inclined to allow impugned order of terminatio and proper opportunity of opportunities were granted to been filed. On 27.1.2010, last: but even then no return averments made in petition, it has been that there was no r. village as a condition of his ap were other candidates who wer, they were appointed. Without petitioner ^{to be appointed on t} finds that it is not a case circumstances, it was obligat petitioner ^{an opportunity of} livelihood by terminating his : o ' s	submission of learned counsel for the the petition ^{on the short}ground ^that n has been passed ^withoutgiving ^due hearing to the petitioner. Though espondents to file return, no return has pportunity of filing return was granted, s been filed. Even otherwise, from is found that the case of the petitioner quirement of resident of the particular ointment. He further submits that there not domicile of village Bisesara but yet commenting upon the eligibility of the e post of Assistant Teacher, this Court of forgone conclusion. Under these on the part of respondents to give the ring before taking away his source of ces. a a i
“A	Consequently, this pe termination dated 7.9. 1993 (Ar It shall be open:for resp to give proper-opportunity of case with regard to eligibility. petitioner ^{did not suffenfrom} 3 »	tior/L is allowed. Impugned order of nexure A—12) is hereby set aside. ndent No.1 (now State of Chhattisgarh) ring to the petitioner and decide the If upon enquiry, it is found that the ny disqualification and was eligible, he a

mm

zoo m

m m (1Hf3aia)

mmwfam B, FI
Tere shall benoorder stocosts. h zE

R.R.Shankar Gupta v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.R.Shankar Gupta v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramlal and Ors. Vs Laxmi Bai and Anr.

United India Insu.Co.Ltd. Vs Manju Devi and Ors.

F.R.Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Haseena Begum and Anr. Vs Sayyed Ashique Ali Khan and Anr.

Pana Ram Paswan Vs State and Ors.