High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kaushal K. Sharma & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 23366 of 1990  RD-AH 13189 (31 July 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23366 of 1990
Kaushal Kumar Sharma & others Versus State of U.P. & others
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
Petitioners were appointed as Gram Panchayat Adhikari in December, 1989. After the appointment of the petitioners, they were given training, which they completed on 9.2.1990 and thereafter joined on the posts on which they were appointed. Then by order dated 9.8.1990 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, the services of the petitioners had been terminated. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.
On 22.11.1990 this Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 9.8.1990 and consequently, as has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are still continuing to work on the posts on which they were appointed.
I have heard Sri Rashtrapati Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. Despite time having been granted on several occasions and more than 17 years having passed, no counter affidavit has yet been filed. As such this writ petition is being heard and decided at this stage.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed after due selection and after their selection they had successfully undergone the training and continued to work without any complaint with regard to their work and conduct. The appointments were made against permanent vacancies and in accordance with law their names had been duly forwarded by the Employment Exchange. It has thus been contended that passing of the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioners without even giving any opportunity of showing cause would be illegal.
In the absence of any counter affidavit having been filed, the averments made in the writ petition would be taken as correct. The appointment of the petitioners have been made on clear vacancies. It is settled law that once a right has accrued in favour of a person, the same can be withdrawn only after complying with the principles of natural justice. In the present case there is total non compliance of the principles of natural justice as no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioners before passing of the impugned order and as such on this ground alone, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 9.8.1990 is quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. It is made clear that the rights of the Respondents no.5, 6 and 7 would not be affected by passing of this order.
No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.