Jharkhand High Court
Savita Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:13083-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.615 of 2024
------
Savita Devi, aged about 43 years, wife of Shri Balram Baraik,
resident of Village-Malai, P.O. & P.S.-Palkot, District-Gumla
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government
of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi;
2. District Superintendent of Education, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.-Gumla,
District-Gumla;
3. District Programme Officer, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.-Gumla, District-
Gumla;
4. District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme
Officer, 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan', Gumla, P.O. & P.S.-Gumla,
District-Gumla;
5. Director, Jharkhand Education Project, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.-Gumla,
District-Gumla; .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA
For the JEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate
------
07/Dated: 01.05.2025
Prayer
1. The instant appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is
directed against the order/judgment dated 19.06.2024 passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2251 of
2022, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been
dismissed on the ground that the appointment of writ petitioner
2025:JHHC:13083-DB
was temporary in nature and she can be removed without any
notice or without assigning any reason.
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ
petition, required to be enumerated which read as under:-
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that she was appointed on
07.03.2011 and gave her joining as Physical Teacher in Kasturba
Gandhi Girls School, Palkot. On 12.03.2011, an agreement was
entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4
regarding terms and conditions of the appointment. It is specific
case of the petitioner that she made a representation for her
leave without pay from 10.1.2017 to 10.2.2017 on the ground of ill
health. However, in course of time, on 21.01.2017, a student has
committed suicide in the hostel, which led to enquiry and
thereafter, the petitioner's appointment was cancelled.
4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant was
appointed as Physical Teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Girls School,
Palkot. The appellant while working as such, was removed from
service vide order dated 14.03.2017 as contained in memo
no.218. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order,
has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S)
No.2251 of 2022 challenging the aforesaid order on the ground
that the same is stigmatic in nature but without providing effective
opportunity of hearing and merely by issuance of show cause
notice, the order of removal was passed.
2025:JHHC:13083-DB
5. The ground has been taken that even though, the response was
filed by the writ petitioner in terms of show cause notice issued
which was not taken into consideration.
6. The learned Single Judge has called upon the Respondent-
JEPC. The ground was taken that the ample opportunity was
given and considering the conduct of the writ petitioner to be
dereliction in duty as also after taking into consideration the
nature of appointment, which was on contract for a fixed term, the
impugned order of removal from service was passed.
7. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the
impugned order on the ground of nature of appointment of the
writ petitioner was on contract.
8. The said order is under challenge by filing the instant appeal.
Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant
9. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner
has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not taken into
consideration the response submitted by the appellant in terms of
show cause notice issued and as such, there is no proper
consideration on the ground agitated by her, which would be
evident from the face of impugned order challenged before the
writ court.
10. It has been submitted that since, there is no consideration of
response and as such, the same is in violation of principle of
natural justice and hence, the same ought to have been
interfered with by the learned Single Judge but having not done
2025:JHHC:13083-DB
so, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
suffers from an error and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law.
Argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent-JEPC
11. While on the other hand, Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-JEPC has submitted that the writ
petition was preferred after lapse of five years from the date of
passing of the impugned order.
12. It has been contended that the nature of appointment of the
appellant/writ petitioner was on contract and as such, due to
lapse of period, the third party right has been created, since, the
Kasturba Gandi Girls School is required to have the employee in
Physical Teacher.
13. It has been submitted that even otherwise also, there is no
explanation of filing the writ petition after lapse of five years
against the order of termination dated 14.03.2017 that to, the
nature of appointment was on contract.
14. Further, the allegation as per finding recorded by the inquiry
committee was that without any leave said to be sanctioned, the
appellant/writ petitioner was found to be absent, which led
casualty of death of student of School. The authority has
considered the conduct of the appellant that serious lapses
committed on her part and hence, taking into consideration the
nature of appointment and as per the condition stipulated in the
offer of appointment, the decision was taken to remove her from
service.
2025:JHHC:13083-DB
15. It has also been contended that the principle of natural justice has
been followed.
16. The argument therefore, has been advanced that the learned
Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects
of the matter, since, has declined to interfere with the impugned
order, as such, the order so passed by the learned Single Judge,
cannot be said to suffer from an error.
Analysis
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order as also the pleading made in the instant Letters
Patent Appeal along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondent-JEPC.
18. The ground which has been agitated that there is no
consideration of defence, which was submitted by the
appellant/writ petitioner before the authority in pursuant to the
show cause notice issued by the authority concerned, hence, the
impugned order cannot be said to be in accordance with law.
19. There is no dispute about the position of law that if any show
cause has been asked and reply has been submitted, then the
requirement is to consider the reply, which has been taken in
defence and in absence of such consideration, the order as has
been passed will be said to be not in accordance with law, rather,
it will be said to be contrary to the principle of natural justice.
20. This Court is being conscious with the aforesaid position and
2025:JHHC:13083-DB
adverting to the factual aspect of the present case that it is the
specific case of the appellant that on the day, when the incident
took place, she was on leave. However, the case of the appellant
as per the defence reply is that the authority has recommended
for leave but no leave was sanctioned by the competent authority
but even then, she has proceeded on leave.
21. The question as has been raised on the issue of consideration of
the defence reply is to be tested on the basis of the aforesaid
admitted fact of no sanctioned leave.
22. It is not in dispute that the principle of natural justice is not to be
taken into consideration in straight-jacket formula, rather, the
natural justice is to be waived out if there is no chance of change
in the decision in a case of admitted fact.
23. The inquiry is required in a situation where the fact is in dispute,
reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. v.
Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others,
reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held at paragraph-64 which is being quoted herein below:
"64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a
valuable right. Denial of such right is serious
breach of statutory procedure prescribed and
violation of rules of natural justice. In these
appeals preferred by the holder of lands and
some other transferees, we have found that the
terms of government grant did not permit
transfers of land without permission of the State
2025:JHHC:13083-DB
as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of
transferees who were not heard, would,
therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so,
when on this legal question all affected parties
have got full opportunity of hearing before the
High Court and in this appeal before this Court.
Rules of natural justice are to be followed for
doing substantial justice and not for completing a
mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any
change in the decision of the case on merits. In
view of the legal position explained by us above,
we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases
in exercise of our discretionary powers under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India."
24. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others,
reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519, wherein, their Lordships have held
at paragraph39, which is being quoted herein below:-
"39. We are not concerned with these aspects in
the present case as the issue relates to giving of
notice before taking action. While emphasizing
that the principles of natural justice cannot be
applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid
instances are given. We have highlighted the
jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles
of natural justice which are grounded on the
doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of
outcome leading to general social goals, etc.
Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for
some reason- perhaps because the evidence
against the individual is thought to be utterly
compelling- it is felt that a fair hearing "would
2025:JHHC:13083-DB
make no difference"- meaning that a hearing
would not change the ultimate conclusion
reached by the decision-maker."
25. Adverting to the ground taken by the appellant that there is no
consideration and as such, the impugned order needs to be
quashed and set aside but we are not in agreement with such
submission, reason being that, the leave was not sanctioned but
she was proceeded on leave.
26. This Court, therefore, is of the view that in such undisputed
ground even if, the matter will be remitted by interfering with the
order dated 14.03.2017 then there is no chance of change in the
factual aspect in such admitted fact.
27. The second ground which has been raised by the respondent-
JEPC that even though, the nature of appointment was
contractual and from the same, the appellant was removed from
service on 14.03.2017 but the writ petition was filed after lapse of
five years.
28. However, the learned Single Judge has not gone on this
premise, but since, we are exercising the power conferred under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India being furtherance of the
proceeding of the writ Court, hence, has thought it proper to take
this ground.
29. The law is well settled that the limitation is not applicable, so far
as the issue of maintaining the writ petition before the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned but the
principle of delay and laches is required to be taken into
2025:JHHC:13083-DB
consideration.
30. It is also settled that every delay and laches is not to hold the writ
petition as not maintainable, rather, if the delay has sufficiently
been explained, then, such delay and laches will not be rider in
entertaining the writ petition.
31. We, after going through the paper book as also the record of the
writ petition, have found that no such explanation has been
furnished as to what led the writ petitioner in approaching this
court after lapse of five years from the date of order of
termination.
32. The delay is having consequence in the facts of the present case,
since, the nature of appointment of present appellant, was on
contract.
33. It is evident from condition no.3 of appointment letter, wherein,
the condition has been stipulated that immediately after end of
the period of contract, the service of one or the other will be
dispensed with. It has also been stipulated therein that service
can be dispensed with without any notice given.
34. It is the admitted fact that the said appointment letter was dated
07.03.2011 and as per the condition stipulated in condition no.5
that the service of one or the other contractual employee will
culminate immediately after end of the period of contract. No
further document has been appended, save and except, the offer
of appointment letter dated 07.03.2011, which contains a
condition that the period of contract will be for a period of one
2025:JHHC:13083-DB
year only. The offer of appointment dated 07.03.2011, thus
clarifies that the contract was on month-to-month basis.
35. The reason on that count, i.e., after expiry of the period of
contract, the appellant has got no right to claim to be retained in
service.
36. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid fact and coming
to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has found that if
the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the
nature of appointment as also considering the reason referred in
the impugned order, has declined to interfere with the impugned
order, which according to the considered view of this Court,
cannot be said to suffer from an error.
37. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.
38. In consequence thereof, Interloucutory Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Rohit/-A.F.R.
