Praveen Kumar vs State Of Karnataka And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2809 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

       WRIT PETITION NO.226913 OF 2020(S-DIS)
                        C/W
       WRIT PETITION NO.226908, 226914 OF 2020
                         &
          WRIT PETITION No.200700 OF 2021

IN WP NO.226913 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

CHETAN T
S/O SHRI SHEKARAPPA T
AGED 30 YEARS,
OCC.ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (HORTICULTURE)
KRISHI VIGYAN KENDRA,
RADDEWADAGI,
R/O H.NO.92, 1ST FLOOR,
DATTA NAGAR,
UDNOOR ROAD,
BEHIND JAITEERTH KALYAN MANTAP,
KALABURAGI-585102
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRL. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION,
                            2




VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001

2 . THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES
RAICHUR 584101
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR FOR R1;
 SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN
APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2020
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN FILE NO.R/UASR/RECTT/
ADVT/11/2020-21/2825 ANNEXURE D WITHDRAWING THE
ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED
04.09.2017 UNDER CATEGORY-I AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
HORTICULTURE, COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE B; AND ETC.

IN WP NO.226908 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

RAVI
S/O JATTAPPA PUJARI
AGED 32 YEARS,
OCC.ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (HORTICULTURE)
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
BHIMARAYANAGUDI,
R/O GEETA NILAYA,
SHANTHNAGAR,
JEWARGI-585310
DIST.KALABURAGI
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: RAVINDRA REDDY)
                            3




AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001

2 . THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES
RAICHUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR,
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1;
 Sri MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2;
 SRI RAVI B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

   THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE
WRIT, MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 IN FILE NO. R/UASR/RECTT/ADVT/11/2020-21/2818 i.e.,
ANNEXURE D WITHDRAWING THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF
THE PETITINER DATED 04.09.2017 UNDER CATEGORY-II(A) AS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN HORTICULTURE ANNEXURE B; AND
ETC.

IN WP NO.226914 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O BHIMANNA BARUKAR,
AGED 34 YEARS,
OCC. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF GENETICS AND PLANT
BREEDING AT AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION,
KALABURAGI
R/O H.NO.9-12-344
DEVI NIVAS, VIDYANAGAR COLONY,
                            4




NEAR BASAVESHWAR CHOWK,
BIDAR-585403
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRL. SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001

2 . THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES
RAICHUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1;
 SRI MAHANTESH PAGIL ADVOCATE FOR C/R2;
 SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE
WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2020 PASSED BY
THE    RESPONDENT    NO.2    IN  FILE  NO.R/UASR/RECTT/
ADVT/11/2020-21/2816 i.e. ANNEXURE D WITHDRAWING THE
ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED
04.09.2017 UNDER CATEGORY-ST AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
IN GENETICS AND PLANT BREEDING COPY OF WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE B; AND ETC.

IN WP NO.200700 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

DR. ANAND POLICE PATIL
WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF
AGRONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURE SCIENCES AT RAICHUR.
                                           ...PETITIONER
                              5




(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI NARESH V KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENTOF AGRICULTURE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU.

2 . THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,

3 . THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR.

4 . DR. SIDDARAM
AGE. MAJOR,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
IN AGRO-METEOROLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1;
 SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
 SRI KRUPA SAGR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 15.03.2021 IN NO.R/UASR/RECTT./
ADVT.11/2020-21/1232 VIDE ANNEXURE H, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC.
                                6




    IN THESE PETITIONS ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                          ORDER

In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the

order dated 11th December, 2020 passed by the respondent

No.2, withdrawing the order of appointment of the petitioners

dated 04th September, 2017. Since the issue involved in these

writ petitions are identical in nature, they are clubbed, heard

together and are being disposed of by this common Order.

2. The petitioners have applied for various posts notified

by the University of Agricultural Sciences at Raichur (for short

hereinafter referred to as 'UAS'), as per advertisement dated

09th January, 2016. It is the case of the petitioners that,

pursuant to the procedure adopted by the UAS for selection to

various posts, the petitioners were issued order of appointment.

These appointments have been made as per Article 371-J of

Constitution of India. On expiry of the probationary period, UAS

has confirmed the appointment and thereby the petitioners have

become regular appointees of the UAS. In the meanwhile, the

petitioners were given annual increments for the year 2021.

When the things stood thus, the unsuccessful candidates in the

selection have challenged the appointment of the petitioners

herein and thereby the Government of Karnataka constituted a

Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. M.N. Sheelavantar,

the then Vice-Chancellor of UAS, Bengaluru (for short hereinafter

referred to as the "Dr. M N Sheelavantar Committee") to enquire

into various appointments made by UAS, Raichur and to submit

report for taking further action. The said Dr. M N Sheelavantar

Committee has probed into the selection process and submitted

its report to the Government of Karnataka duly recommending

withdrawal of appointment orders and thereby to issue fresh

appointment orders to the aggrieved parties. Accepting the

report of the Dr. M.N. Sheelavantar Committee and based on the

letter dated 23rd October, 2020 addressed by the Government,

UAS resolved to accept the said report and consequently taken

decision for withdrawal of the appointment orders issued to the

petitioners. Being aggrieved by the withdrawal of appointment

by the respondent-UAS that the said action has been taken

without hearing the petitioners, the petitioners have presented

these writ petitions.

3. On service of notice, the respondent-UAS entered

appearance and filed statement of objections contending that Dr.

M.N. Sheelavantar Committee enquired into the allegations/

irregularities in the appointment in respondent-UAS and same

was accorded by the Government and as a result of the same,

the respondent-UAS has issued the impugned withdrawal of

appointment of petitioners. It is further stated that, pursuant to

the withdrawal of appointment made in favour of the petitioners,

the respondent-UAS has issued appointment orders to other

candidates and therefore, it is stated that if this Court interferes

with these writ petitions, same would cause hardship to the

newly appointed candidates and therefore, sought for dismissal

of writ petitions. The contesting respondents have also filed

statement of objections, stating that pursuant to the issuance of

withdrawal of appointments of petitioners, respondent-UAS has

appointed the contesting respondents and they are working

against the sanctioned posts as per the notification dated 09 th

January, 2016 and therefore, they contended that writ petitions

require to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

4. Heard learned counsel, Sriyuths Shivanand Patil,

Ravindra Reddy, representing the petitioners; Mahantesh Patil

for respondent-UAS; Ravi B Patil and Krupa Sagar Patil, for

contesting respondents and Viranagouda Biradar, learned

Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

5. Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the impugned withdrawal order passed by the

respondent-UAS is contrary to principles of natural justice, as no

opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioners before issuance

of the impugned orders. He further contended that the

respondent-UAS has declared Probationary period of the

petitioners and therefore, the petitioners ought to have been

heard and taken decision as per Article 311 of the Constitution

of India before withdrawal of appointment.

6. Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner reiterated the submission of Sri Shivanand Patil and

further submitted that the petitioners are the "aggrieved parties"

on account of issuance of impugned withdrawal order and

therefore, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is violated.

Accordingly, he sought for setting aside the impugned orders of

withdrawal.

7. Per contra, Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the

respondent-UAS submitted that the Government has constituted

Committee under the Chairmanship for Dr. M N Sheelavantar,

for enquiring into allegations/irregularities in the recruitment

process and the said Committee, on detailed consideration,

recommended for withdrawal of appointment on account of the

illegality at the time of recruitment and therefore, he refuted the

contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

that since illegality has been committed at the time of issuance

of appointment orders in favour of the petitioners, principles of

natural justice has not been complied with. He further

submitted that the petitioners were well aware about the

illegalities and the recommendation of the Dr. M.N. Sheelavantar

Committee and therefore, he sought to justify the action of the

respondent-UAS. He also submitted that conducting enquiry

against the petitioners is only a formality and therefore, the

action of the respondent-UAS withdrawing the appointment

order without conducting enquiry, is just and proper.

8. Sri Ravi B. Patil and Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, learned

Counsel appearing of the contesting respondents reiterated the

submissions of Sri Mahantesh Patil, and submitted that the

contesting respondents are more meritorious candidates than

the petitioners and the said anomaly has been rectified by the

respondent-UAS pursuant to the finding recorded by Dr. M N.

Sheelavantar Committee and therefore, they sought for

dismissal of writ petitions. It is their further submission that,

contesting respondents have been posted/appointed in the place

of the petitioners subsequent to withdrawal of appointment and

therefore, allowing these writ petitions would cause miscarriage

of justice to the contesting respondents and unsettle their

position in the respondent-UAS.

9. In the light of the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arise for

consideration in these writ petitions is:

"Whether the respondent-UAS is justified in issuing order of withdrawal of appointment?"

10. In the light of submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the

respondent-UAS issued notification dated 09th January, 2016

calling for application from eligible candidates in the prescribed

proforma for filling up various posts in the respondent-UAS

under Hyderabad-Karnataka region and backlog posts of

teachers in the cadre of Professor, Associate Professor and

Assistant Professor in the University of Agriculture Sciences,

Raichur. Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that order of

appointment has been issued as per the notification after

following due procedure, so also, the probationary period of

petitioners has been declared, consequently, annual increment

for the year 2021 has been sanctioned to the petitioners.

Thereafter, at the instance of the unsuccessful candidates, the

respondent-UAS constituted a Committee to unearth the

irregularity/illegality in the selection process. Based on the said

report made by the Committee, the respondent-UAS resorted to

withdraw the appointments made in favour of the petitioners. At

this juncture, it is relevant to extract the reasons assigned by

the respondent-UAS while withdrawing the appointment orders,

which reads as under:

"That several aggrieved candidates have made representations to UAS, Raichur/Government of Karnataka pointing out certain mistake said to have been occurred in the appointments made by UAS, Raichur in response to UAS Notification No.R/UASR/Rectt./Advt.11/ 3604/2015-16 dated 9.01.2016 and Corrigendum/ Addendum dated: 11.04.2016. Having examined the representations the Government of Karnataka was pleased to constitute a committee under the Chairmanship of Doctor. M.N. Sheelavantar the then Vice- Chancellor of UAS, Bangalore to enquire into the various appointments made by UAS, Raichur and submit its report for taking further action. Accordingly, Dr. M.N. Sheelavantar Committee has probed into all the representations and allegations received from the general public and submitted its report to the Government of Karnataka duly recommending withdrawal of appointment orders in certain cases, and thereby to issue fresh appointment orders to the aggrieved ones."

11. Perusal of the aforesaid reasons would indicate that,

no notice nor hearing has been given to the petitioners. No

doubt, the petitioners are being aggrieved by the action of the

respondent-UAS withdrawing their appointments and appointing

the contesting respondents in their place, but also it is reflected

in the impugned withdrawal order that the Committee itself

recommended for withdrawal of appointment and to issue fresh

appointment orders. The said Committee has been constituted

to probe into the recruitment process and to file its report.

However, the said Committee, being a fact finding body, not only

pointed out the irregularities but also recommended for removal

of the petitioners and same has been acceded to by the

Government and the respondent-UAS. It is well-settled principle

that such Committees are only fact-finding bodies and have to

probe only with regard to the allegations if any with regard to

process of recruitment and have to report to the appointing

authority, i.e. Government. In the instant case, perusal of the

impugned withdrawal of appointment orders would suggest that

the appointing authority, without application of mind,

recommended for withdrawal of appointment orders, is bad in

law. Based on the said report, respondent-authorities, without

application of mind and without hearing the petitioners, resorted

withdraw the orders of appointment, which amounts to violation

of principles of natural justice. It is trite law that petitioners are

the "aggrieved parties" and have been removed from service

without affording opportunity of hearing, which is contrary to

Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is also forthcoming

from the writ papers that, show cause notice was issued only to

petitioner in Writ petition No.200700 of 2021, however, such

notices have not been issued to other writ petitioners.

Undisputably, no documents were supplied to the petitioners

before taking action against them. The respondent-UAS ought

to have adhered to the constitutional principle set out under

Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In a catena of decisions,

this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, held that order of

removal, without providing opportunity of the hearing to the

aggrieved person, is contrary to law and therefore, this Court is

of the opinion that the impugned withdrawal of appointment is

bad in law. It is also well established principle that, if the order

of appointment is withdrawn without affording opportunity of

hearing to the affecting person, it amounts to stigmatic order

and such action cannot be sustained under Article 311 of the

Constitution of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

RATNESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE

OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, PATNA, BIHAR AND 0THERS reported in

AIR 2016 SC 467 held that stigmatic orders without affording

opportunity to the aggrieved parties are unsustainable in law.

Perusal of writ petition papers would indicate that no particular

imputation of charges are levelled against the petitioners and

therefore, withdrawing of appointment orders abruptly, without

providing an opportunity to the petitioners is bad in law (see AIR

2003 SC 1709).

12. It is useful to refer to the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of KAMAL NAYAN MISHRA v. STATE OF

MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in 2010 AIR SCW 315,

wherein, after considering termination order of the petitioner

therein on the ground of suppression of information, has held

that it is the duty of the employer to take into consideration

various aspects and the blanket order of termination of service

cannot be issued.

13. It is the main contention of the respondents is,

issuance of notice is a useless formality in respect of the

petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of ALIGARH

MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS v. MANSOOR ALI KHAN

reported in (2000)7 SCC 529 has evolved the doctrine of

"useless formality" and held that the aggrieved parties have to

be heard before passing stigmatic order. In the said judgment

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the principles of natural

justice shall be complied with, if the order in question is

prejudiced to such persons. The "useless formality" theory is an

exception to hearing the aggrieved persons and each case has to

be understood on the facts of the said case. In the present case,

the impugned order of withdrawal directly and substantially

affects the natural rights of the petitioners and therefore, Article

311 of the Constitution of India shall protect the interest of the

petitioners since the petitioners have not been heard, before

passing the impugned order of withdrawal. Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of AJIT KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND

OTHERS reported in (2011)11 SCC 458, at paragraphs 10 to 12

has observed thus:

"10. In order to appreciate the power to be exercised under Article 311 of the Constitution of India it

would be appropriate to look at Article 310 of the Constitution of India. Under the doctrine of pleasure, which has been recognized under our Constitutional framework, all civil posts under the Government are held at the pleasure of the Government under which they are held and are terminable at its will. The aforesaid power is what the doctrine of pleasure defines, which was recognized in the United Kingdom and also received the constitutional sanction under our Constitution in the light of Article 310 of the Constitution of India. However, it is to be noticed that in India the same is subject to other provisions of the Constitution which include the restrictions imposed by Article 310(2) and Article 311(1)(2). Therefore, under the Indian constitutional framework, dismissal of civil servants must comply with the procedure laid down in Article 311 and Article 310(1) cannot be invoked independently with the object of justifying a contravention of Article 311(2).

11. There is an exception provided by way of incorporation of Article 311(2) with sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c). No such enquiry is required to be conducted for the purposes of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons when the same related to dismissal on the ground of conviction or where it is not practicable to hold an enquiry for the reasons to be recorded in writing by that authority empowered to dismiss or removed a person or reduce him in rank or it is not practicable to hold an enquiry for the security of the State. These three

exceptions are well recognized for dispensing with an enquiry, which is required to be conducted under Article 311 of the Constitution of India when the authority takes a decision for dismissal or removal or reduction in rank in writing. In other words, although there is a pleasure doctrine, however, the same cannot be said to be absolute and the same is subject to the conditions that when a government servant is to be dismissed or removed from service or he is reduced in rank, a departmental enquiry is required to be conducted to enquire into his misconduct and only after holding such an enquiry and in the course of such enquiry if he is found guilty then only a person can be removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank.

12. As stated herein such constitutional provision for holding an enquiry as set out under Article 311 of the Constitution of India could also be dispensed with under the exceptions provided to Article 311(2) of the constitution where clause (a) relates to a case where upon a conviction of a person by a criminal court on certain charges he could be removed from service without holding an enquiry. Similarly, under clause (c) an enquiry to be held against the government employee could be dispensed with if it is not possible to hold such an enquiry in the interest of the security of the State. Sub-clause (b) on the other hand provides that such an enquiry could be dispensed with by the concerned authority, after recording reasons, for which it is not practicable to hold

an enquiry. The aforesaid power is an absolute power of the disciplinary authority who after following the procedure laid down therein could resort to such extra ordinary power provided it follows the pre-conditions laid down therein meaningfully and effectively. "

(emphasis supplied)

14. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the aforementioned decision and applying the same to the

facts of the present writ petitions, I am of the view that the

respondent-authorities committed illegality while issuing the

impugned orders. Further, I find force in the submission made

by Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners

relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of ANOOP JAISWAL v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHER

reported in AIR 1984 SC 636. In the course of the judgment,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:

"... the form of the order is not decisive as to whether the order is by way of punishment and that even an innocuously worded order terminating the service may in the fact and circumstances of the case establish that an enquiry into allegations of serious and grave character of

misconduct involving stigma has been made in infraction of the provision of Article. 311(2).

It is, therefore, now well settled that where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the Court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the Court holds that the order though in the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the Court would not be debarred, merely because of the form of the order, in giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employee. "

In the said judgment, it is further observed thus:

"A narration of the facts of the case leaves no doubt that the alleged act of misconduct on June 22, 1981 was the real foundation for the action taken against the appellant and that the other instances stated in the course of the counter affidavit are mere allegations which are put forward' only for purposes of strengthening the defence which is otherwise very weak. The case is one which attracted Article 311(2) of the Constitution as the impugned order amounts to a termination of service by way of punishment and an enquiry should have been held in accordance with the said constitutional provision. hat admittedly having not been done, the impugned order is liable t be struck down. We accordingly set aside the

judgment of the High Court and the impugned order dated November 5, 1981 discharging the appellant from service. The appellant should now be reinstated in service with the same rank and seniority he was entitled to before the impugned order was passed as if it had not been passed at all. He is also entitled to all consequential benefits including the appropriate year of allotment and the arrears of salary and allowances upto the date of his reinstatement. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

The appellant had to face this case just at the commencement of his career. We have allowed his claim in the name of the Constitution. This should help him to regain his spirit and also encourage him to turn out to be a public servant in the true sense of that expression. "

15. In addition to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the aforementioned judgment, the Division Bench of this

Court in Writ Appeal No.261 of 2019 and connected appeals

decided on 09th November, 2020, has held that, insofar as

permanent employees are concerned there ought to be

compliance of principles of natural justice by holding an enquiry

as per Article 311 of Constitution of India. Therefore, applying

the aforementioned ratio to the facts on hand, I am of the view

that the impugned orders of withdrawal of appointment require

to be set aside. I have also noticed that show cause notice

dated 15th March, 2021 has been issued by the respondent-UAS

only to the petitioner in Writ petition No.200700 of 2021. I am

of the view that the respondent-UAS has committed another

mistake by issuing show cause notice selectively to some of the

employees and this would indicate the non-application of mind

by the respondent-UAS. That apart, perusal of the said show-

cause notice issued to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.200700

of 2021, would substantiate the fact of pre-meditation and

therefore, in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of M/S. SIEMENS LIMITED v. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in (2006) AIR SCW 6380,

the action on the part of the respondent-UAS is bad in law and

therefore, the submission made by learned Counsel Sri

Mahantesh Patil, that the writ petition is not maintainable insofar

as the petitioner in Writ petition No.200700 of 2021 is concerned

cannot be accepted. It is also useful to refer to the dictum of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF BIHAR v. LAL

KRISHNA ADWANI reported in AIR 2003 SC 3357. In the light of

the foregoing reasons, the action taken by the respondent-UAS

in furtherance of the report of Dr. M.N. Sheelavantar Committee

would definitely prejudice the rights of the petitioners and

therefore, I am of the view that the withdrawal of appointment

orders by the respondent-UAS is contrary to law and accordingly

same are set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the

respondent-UAS to take action against petitioners, for any laxity

on the part of the petitioners while entry into service in the

respondent-UAS, only after affording fullest opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law and such

actions shall conform to Article 14, 16, 310 and 311 of the

Constitution of India. Hence, the following:

ORD ER

(i) Writ Petitions are allowed;

(ii) Order dated 11th December, 2020 issued by the

respondent No.2 impugned in Writ Petitions

No.226913, 226908 and 226914 of 2021 are set

aside;

(iii) Show-cause notice dated 15 th March, 2021

issued by the respondents impugned in Writ

Petition No.200700 of 2021 is set aside.

(iv) No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn