Karunik Kumar Kanojiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3973 MP

                                      W.P. No. 323/2022 & W.P. No. 319/2022
                              1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

                             BEFORE

       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                    ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2022




                 WRIT PETITION No. 323 of 2022

 Between:-
 KARUNIK KUMAR KANOJIYA S/O SHRI BRINDAWAN KANOJIYA, AGED
 ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX CARDIOTHORACIC TECHNICIAN,
 SHYAM SHAH AUTONOMOUS MEDICAL COLLEGE SUPER SPECIALTY
 BLOCK REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                        .....PETITIONER
 (SHRI AJEET KUMAR SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

 AND

   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS SECRETARY HEALTH
1. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   COMMISSIONER HEALTH EDUCATION MADHYA PRADESH SATPUDA
2.
   BHAWAN 6TH FLOOR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER / DEAN AUTONOMOUS SHYAM SHAH MEDICAL
3.
   COLLEGE, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
   JOINT DIRECTOR / SUPERINTENDENT GANDHI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
4.
   REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
   COMMISSIONER REWA DIVISION / CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
5. AUTONOMOUS SHYAM SHAH MEDICAL COLLEGE DISTRICT REWA
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
 (SHRI ANKIT AGRAWAL, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
 RESPONDENTS/STATE)




                 WRIT PETITION No. 319 of 2022

 Between:-
 DINDAYAL BAIRWA S/O SHRI BAJRANG LAL BAIRWA , AGED ABOUT 27
 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX- CARDIOTHORACIC TECHNICIAN SHYAM SHAH
 AUTONOMOUS MEDICAL COLLEGE SUPER SPECIALTY BLOCK REWA
 DISTRICT REWA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                        .....PETITIONER
 (SHRI AJEET KUMAR SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

 AND
                                                  W.P. No. 323/2022 & W.P. No. 319/2022
                                        2

   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS SECRETARY HEALTH
1. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   COMMISSIONER HEALTH EDUCATION MADHYA PRADESH SATPURA
2.
   BHAWAN 6TH FLOOR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/DEAN AUTONOMOUS SHYAM SHAH MEDICAL
3.
   COLLEGE REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
   JOINT DIRECTOR/SUPERINTENDENT GANDHI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL REWA
4.
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   COMMISSIONER REWA DIVISION/CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
5. AUTONOMOUS SHYAM SHAH MEDICAL COLLAGE REWA (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
     (SHRI ANKIT AGRAWAL, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
     RESPONDENTS/STATE)



        These petitions coming on for admission and I.R. this day, the court passed

the following:

                                       ORDER

Since common question of law and facts are involved in both petitions, they are heard analogously and decided by a common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P.No.323/2022 are taken.

2. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 29.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the services of the petitioner have been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner did not possess essential qualifications as per the recruitment rules.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 01.06.2021 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Cardiothoracic Technician. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and was declared successful. The petitioner was issued with appointment order dated 27.09.2021. The petitioner joined the services and was being paid the salary. While scrutinizing/verifying the original documents as per requirement of the advertisement, the respondents did not consider the graduation diploma in W.P. No. 323/2022 & W.P. No. 319/2022

Perfusion Cardiac Surgeon Technology, whereas in the same department i.e. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur has accepted the said certificate. As a result, the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide impugned order dated 29.12.2021. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing or any notice. It is further submitted that as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Ranjeet Kumar Chakravarti, 2018 (12) SCC 807, in which it is held that the major punishment cannot be awarded without following the principles of natural justice. Similarly, this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Nema Vs. State of M.P. 2018 (2) MPLJ 689 has held that before terminating the service by stigmatic order, opportunity of hearing must be accorded. The petitioner has been terminated even though he possesses the requisite qualifications as per the recruitment rules.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the Apex Court judgment in the cases of H.L Terhan and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1989 (1) SCC 764 and Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress 1991 (Suppl) 1 SCC 600 to contend that even the administrative order which entails civil consequences and adversely effect an employee, must be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner submits that had the respondents given the opportunity to clarify the position, the order of termination would not have been passed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that as per advertisement dated 01.06.2021, the diploma in the field of Cardiothoracic Technician is an essential qualification which the petitioner does not possess and in absence of minimum qualification, the petitioner has been rightly terminated. If the qualification is not available, providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, would only be a useless formality. The petitioner is unable to show that if opportunity of hearing is granted what difference would it makes when he does not posses the minimum educational qualification. In such circumstances, the both W.P. No. 323/2022 & W.P. No. 319/2022

petitions being baseless, misconceived, devoid of substance and are liable to be dismissed.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, no opportunity of hearing or show cause notice have been issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. In the light of H. L. Terhan (supra) and Delhi Transport Corporation (supra), the respondents could not have passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity of hearing or following the principles of natural justice.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the respondents are granted opportunity to issue show cause notice to the petitioners calling for their explanation and thereafter on due verification of the conditions of advertisement pass a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

10. Accordingly, these petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE vinay* Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2022.03.25 18:55:01 +05'30'