Jharkhand High Court
Cleret Ekka vs State Of Jharkhand on 7 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:33321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6611 of 2012
----
Cleret Ekka, wife of Sri Shibu Mahto, resident of Village Salhan, PO
Childag, P.S. Angara, Disrtrict-Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Jharkhand, PO GPO, PS Kotwali, District
Ranchi
3.District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, Jharkhand, PO GPO, PS
Kotwali, District Ranchi
4.Block Education Extension Officer, Angara, PO Angara, PS Angara,
District Ranchi ...... ..... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate
----
9/07.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well
as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 06.09.2010
passed by the respondent no.4 whereby the petitioner has been removed from
the service and further prayer is made for directing the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs
to reserved category of scheduled caste and possessing B.A. (Hons.) Degree.
He submits that in light of the meeting held on 01.09.2003 in which name of
the petitioner was recommended for appointment on the post of Para Teacher
as she fulfilled all requisites qualification for the same and thereafter the
petitioner was appointed on the post of Para Teacher on 15.11.2003. He further
submits that the petitioner has worked for six long years to the utmost
satisfaction of the respondents before the order of removal. He then submits
that in the meeting held of Gram Samittee held on 14.12.2009 the allegation
has been made against the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed on
producing false caste certificate. He then submits that thereafter the petitioner
has been removed from service by the impugned order dated 06.09.2010 with
retrospective effect from 14.12.2009. He next submits that the petitioner has
not been called upon to file any reply to the show cause and the show cause
has not been issued and without following the principles of natural justice the
impugned order has been passed. He then submits that in view of that, the
impugned order may kindly be set aside. He further submits that even if the
service is there of contractual in nature, the principles of natural justice are
required to be followed and to buttress his such argument, he relied in the case
of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2020) 10
SCC 610 and submits that in that case, it has been held that the order
impugned should not have been passed by the respondents without affording
him opportunity of hearing which is in violation of principles of natural justice.
He submits that the respondents were not at all justified in passing the order
impugned. He further relied in the case of Md. Rizwan Ali in W.P.(S)
No.1952 of 2019 order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court wherein it
has been held that if the order is stigmatic, an opportunity of hearing should
have been given by the respondents to the petitioner. He also submits that in
the case of ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit
Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others reported in (2004) 3
SCC 553 wherein at 5paragraph no.23, it has been held has under:
"23. It is clear from the above observations of this Court,
once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party of
the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and
reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India ........."
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State has
opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner was contractual appointee
and in view of that no show cause was required to be issued to the petitioner.
He also submits that in counter affidavit one warning letter was issued to the
petitioner is annexed and thereafter the decision was taken by the Block
Education Establishment Committee. On these grounds, he submits that there is
no merit in the writ petition.
5. In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the parties, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has worked
for six years and thereafter the petitioner was removed by the impugned order
and there is no show cause annexed with the counter affidavit and the
petitioner has not been asked to reply any show cause notice and without
affording the opportunity to the petitioner of hearing, the impugned order has
been passed.
6. In view of above judgments, on which the reliance has been made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is well settled that principle of natural
justice is like a brooding omnipresence which prevails everywhere. A person
who is going to lose his services which has civil consequences on his life, was
required to be given an opportunity of hearing and for that reason if that
opportunity would have bene given to him, he could have raised all such pleas
which were available to him. Admittedly, no opportunity of hearing was
provided to the petitioner and in absence of that, the impugned order has been
passed and as such, the impugned order dated 06.09.2010 cannot sustain in
the eye of law and accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.09.2010 is,
hereby, set aside.
7. The matter is remitted back to the respondent State to proceed afresh, if
advised, in accordance with law.
8. This petition is allowed in the above terms and stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 07th Nov.,2025
SI/
