Allowed

Bhupendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 Apr 2018CW/5480/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the writ petition held that denying appointment to selected candidates without a hearing was a violation of natural justice. The court quashed termination orders and directed the respondents to grant the petitioners an opportunity of hearing regarding complaints from ousted candidates before passing fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; termination orders quashed; petitioners granted opportunity of hearing to rebut complaints before fresh orders are passed; status quo maintained.

Bhupendra Choubisa Vs State of Rajasthan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5480 / 2018

Bhupendra Choubisa

----Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Choudhary

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Choudhary for Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

17/04/2018

¶13

Learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Subhash Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12299 / 2017) decided on 27.11.2017, the relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

¶14

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the State had the requirement of the posts of the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks, and therefore, the appropriate amendments were made by incorporating Rule 258 Sub-rule (3) by way of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016. After incorporating the said Sub-rule (3), the Gram Panchayat Sahayaks were to be selected, recommended and appointed, as per the policy laid down by the respondents in various circulars. This policy included screening of the petitioners coupled with the recommendations of the SDMC/SMC, which was finally forwarded to the District Level Committee before the final approval for the appointment was received.

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

Thus, the petitioners, strictly in accordance with the policy laid down by the respondents, have undergone the selection process and have qualified for being finally appointed and many of them have been given appointment, however, in some of the cases, the appointment is only waiting for the orders to be issued in that regard. Thus, all the candidates have completely gone through the selection process and are entitled for being appointed as Gram Panchayat Sahayaks.

¶17

This Court has carefully gone through the earlier orders, as aforementioned, passed by this Hon’ble Court in the matters of Bhoma Ram and Sunita Sharma (supra), and this Hon’ble Court while issuing directions to the respondents had only kept in mind that the appropriate opportunity of hearing had to be given to the persons, who were left out and nothing more. For making such opportunity of hearing fruitful and for making the process of redressal of the grievances confidence-worthy, this Hon’ble Court directed the constitution of a Committee, and thereafter, disposal of the representations by a detailed speaking order before communication of the same to the candidate concerned.

¶18

The respondents, without due application of mind, have passed a mechanical order on consideration of the representations, by passing the fresh circular dated 15.09.2017, whereby fresh selection process has been introduced wherever the appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayaks was disputed by the persons making such representations.

¶19

The respondents-authorities rather than acting as Grievance Redressal Cell, as per the earlier orders of this Hon’ble Court, have opened a new Pandora Box and have acted in a very unusual manner by ousting or depriving the selected/appointed candidates of their rights without giving them any opportunity of hearing. It can be clearly seen that the right, which was to be protected by the respondents, on the direction of the Hon’ble Court, has in fact more deeply been infringed by the respondents, as while hearing the grievances again, the respondents have trampled over the feet of the persons duly selected/appointed. It is a mockery of justice that the candidates, whose appointments have been approved by the District Level Committee, have been deprived of their valuable

¶20

(3 of 5)

¶21

right to get appointment, that too, in a one sided proceeding, without giving them any opportunity of hearing, while only relying upon the complaints/representations being made by the ousted persons, who could not make it in the selection process.

¶22

The respondents owed a serious duty to have maintained the balance between the two sets of candidates, whereas it looks that the respondents are perpetuating the miseries of unemployed youth by putting them into the litigation again and again and forcing them to take recourse of the Hon’ble Court, and thus, the respondents are not making their own sincere efforts to redress the grievances of the aggrieved persons.

¶23

The doctrine of audi alteram partem is a cardinal principle of the rule of law, and as has been previously noticed by this Court, the same has been imbibed deep into the roots of the rights available to the citizens of this country. The respondents have miserably failed to create redressal out of the mechanism provided by this Hon’ble Court on the earlier occasion, and have rather created the chaos amongst the unemployed youth by pitting them against each other, as both the sets of appointed/selected versus ousted candidates have made their own camping grounds and in fact contesting each other by their precious youthful energies. This Court deprecates the said practice of non-application of mind adopted by the respondents/authorities.

¶24

This Court takes note of the fact that all the impugned orders, including the fresh circular dated 15.09.2017 and the termination orders, which have been passed, are not only cryptic and one sided, but also amount to travesty of justice for the persons, who have already been selected/appointed. The termination order clearly reflects only one sided consideration, whereby the persons, who were not approved/selected gave representations, and their verbatim version has been reproduced in the termination order, without any application of mind or without going into the fact that the petitioners themselves have a valuable right to rebut the facts mentioned in such representation.

¶25

The respondents have initiated the process for rest of the Gram Panchayats, where the dispute arose out of the decisions taken

¶26

(4 of 5)

¶27

by the SDMC/SMC and District Level Committee and have passed the circular dated 15.09.2017. Thus, the irresponsible conclusion has been made by the respondents-authorities regarding the disputes in respect of approval/appointment, by holding the approvals for selection/appointment bad, even without giving the minimum required opportunity of hearing or any kind of notice to the petitioners. The petitioners, if at all, had committed any wrong, then also, they should have been given at least one proper opportunity of hearing, to rebut the facts mentioned in the representation of the ousted candidates, so as to defend their appointment/selection.

¶28

Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as the precedent laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to give the petitioners proper opportunity of hearing by calling them or taking their representations regarding the issues, which are required to be considered on the complaint/representation received from the ousted candidates. The reasons for ouster are to be specifically communicated to the petitioners so that they could represent and rebut such reasons of ouster by bringing on record their own defence. The Committee has already been constituted in pursuance of the orders of this Hon’ble Court passed in the matters of Sunita Sharma and Bhoma Ram (supra), and therefore, no fresh Committee needs to be constituted. The respondents shall be required to communicate the reasons for the proposed ouster of the petitioners, and on such communication, a proper opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioners to defend their appointment/selection. After such exercise is completed, the respondents shall be free to take fresh stand in respect of the appointments based on merit, the reasons for ouster and the defence submitted by the petitioners. After such opportunity of hearing is completed with proper application of mind by the concerned authorities, then the valuable right of appointment/selection shall be appropriately reconsidered by the respondents, if so required. Until such exercise is completed, the de novo process of selection pursuant to the aforementioned dated 15.09.2017 would not operate only for the Gram Panchayats, where the selection has been finally approved by the District Level Committee. It is made clear that the respondents shall meanwhile maintain the status quo in respect of the services of the petitioners. It is also made clear that all the impugned

¶29

(5 of 5)

¶30

termination orders stand quashed and the respondents shall be required to pass fresh orders after the proper opportunity of hearing is given to the persons, so selected. Since the persons ousted have already been given opportunity of hearing and their representation, in light of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in Bhoma Ram and Sunita Sharma (supra), therefore, all those shall be kept into consideration. However, since the right has already accrued in favour of the petitioners for being selected/appointed, therefore, the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners shall be duly granted by the Committee concerned, before passing fresh orders, strictly in accordance with law. Since the right of opportunity of hearing should be granted only to the vigilant citizens, therefore, this order shall operate qua the present petitioners only. It is needless to say that the petitioners shall cooperate by all means in the process of opportunity of hearing to be stipulated by the respondents in a time bound manner.”

¶31

In light of the aforementioned judgment, the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms.

¶32

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶33

zeeshan/

Bhupendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Choubisa v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avan Kanwar Vs Lrs of Shankar Lal

Babu Lal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Niranjan Shukla Vs United Commercial Bank and Ors.

Pratibha Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ms. Nirmala Shrimali Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Harish Patidar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.