Chattisgarh High Court
Sukrit Das Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2022
1
(Proceedings through video conferencing)
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 280 of 2020
1. Sukrit Das Manikpuri, S/o Shri Chudamani Das Manikpuri, aged about
42 years, R/o Village - Ganiyari, Police Station - Kharora, Tahsil - Tilda,
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Praveen Kumar Pandey, S/o Shri Vidya Prakash Pandey, aged about 45
years, R/o Village & Post Sakari, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Om Prakash Singh, S/o Shri Trilok Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o
Mukund Bhawan, Baijnath Para, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
4. Ashok Kumar Tiwari, S/o Shri R.K. Tiwari, aged about 47 years, R/o
Street No. 13, Qtr. No. 2/C, Sector-11, Zone-1, Khursipar, Bhilai, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh.
5. Uday Kumar Shukla, S/o Shri Kedar Prasad Shukla, aged about 46
years, R/o Shakti Nagar, Post Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6. Akhand Dev Pandey, S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Pandey, aged about 41
years, R/o MIG-47, Phase-II, Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Korba, Tahsil &
District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
7. Abhishek Kumar, S/o Shri Surendra Pal Singh, aged about 34 years, R/o
Street No. 30, Qr. No. S/A, Sector-1, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
8. Lalit Kumar Bhuarya, S/o Shri Leelaram Bhaurya, aged about 42 years,
R/o Village - Arajkund, PO- Mahrum, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
2
9. Ramnarayan Netam, S/o Shri Ratnu Netam, aged about 49 years, R/o
Village - Murkuta, Post Dagori, Tahsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
10. Ubhelal Mandavi, Shri Jhumuk Lal Mandavi, aged about 42 years, R/o
Village - Jantar, PO Kokpur, Tahsil Dongargaon, Rajnandgaon, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
11. Dinesh Singh, S/o Shri Puhup Singh, aged about 36 years, R/o Village -
Kerijungera, PO Kodekasa, PS Dondi Lohara, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through it's Principal Secretary, Department of
Home (Jail), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Tahsil and District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Director General (Jail), Jail Head Quarter, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Tahsil
and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Inspector General (Jail), Jail Head Quarter, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Tahsil
and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Superintendent of Jail, Circle Jail - Durg, Tahsil and District - Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
5. Superintendent of Jail, District Jail - Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District -
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
13.01.2022
Heard Mr. Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Also
heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents.
2. This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 09.01.2020 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 2695 of 2009, whereby, while
issuing the directions as contained in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment,
the matter was remitted back to the Department for holding enquiry and
accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
3. The appellants participated in the selection process for recruitment of the
'Jail Warder', initiated vide advertisement dated 21.12.2005 and, on being
selected, were appointed on 06.12.2006.
4. Notice dated 15.05.2009 was served on them stating that irregularities
were committed in the selection process and accordingly, their appointment
orders were cancelled.
5. When the aforesaid notice dated 15.05.2009 came to be challenged in
the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, an interim order of status quo
was passed on 27.05.2009 and accordingly, the appellants were continuing in
service.
6. Before the issuance of notice dated 15.05.2009, no opportunity of
hearing was granted and accordingly, the learned Single Judge took the view
that opportunity of hearing at the time of enquiry should be afforded.
Accordingly, at paragraph 4, it is stated as follows:
"4. It may be possible that all the 13 appointments may
not be suffering from any defect. Even if one or more
appointees have been selected fairly, there is no reason
why their appointment should be cancelled. Therefore,
ordinarily, in such cases, opportunity of hearing at the
time of enquiry should be afforded. The petitioners
having worked for about 14 years, it appears, ends of
justice would be served if the impugned notices are
quashed and the matter is remitted back to the
Department for holding enquiry, if they so desire, against
each of the petitioners and thereafter to take final
decision in the matter, in accordance with law. It is
ordered accordingly."
7. Mr. Rajkamal Singh submits that when the appellants have been working
for 14 years, the learned Single Judge ought not to have remitted the matter
back to the Department for holding enquiry and the learned Single Judge ought
to have given a quietus to the issue.
8. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate supports the
impugned order.
9. No doubt, the appellants have been working for the last 14 years, but
what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that such continuation in service was
because of interim order passed on 27.05.2009. The appointment orders of the
appellants were cancelled within a period of 03 years from the date of their
appointment. However, before such cancellation, notices were not issued to the
appellants granting them an opportunity of hearing. It was because of violation
of principles of natural justice, impugned notices came to be set aside.
10. In a matter of present nature, we are of the opinion that when there are
allegations of manipulation in the recruitment process, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge cannot be held to be bad in law, as purity of selection
process cannot be compromised and a selection process cannot be tainted in
any manner.
11. Considering the above, we find no good ground to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
