Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Jyoti Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
ON THE 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 1243 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT JYOTI SHUKLA W/O SHRI DEEPESH SHUKLA, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE MAKER R/O
VILLAGE RAIPUR POST RAIPUR SONURI TEHSIL
TEONTHAR DISTRICT REWA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SATYA PRAKASH MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR AND MISSION SANCHALAK
MADHYA PRADSH MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. C.E.O. JILA PANCHAYAT REWA REWA DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. C.E.O. JANAPAD PANCHAYAT TEONTHAR
DISTRICT REWA REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT RAIPUR JANPAD
PANCHAYAT TEONTHAR DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. NELKAMAL MISHRA S/O JAGJEVAN PRASAD
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
RAIPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT RAIPUR
(CHHATTISGARH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4/STATE BY SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR PANDEY -
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGESH KUMAR
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/26/2023
1:51:22 PM
2
(CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.6 BY SHRI MOHAN SINGH - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking review of final order dated
02.09.2023 passed in W.P. No.10943/2012 (Neelkamal Mishra vs. State of
M.P.) whereby while allowing petition of respondent No.6 herein, this Court
passed the following directions :-
"(i) The respondents 2, 3 and 4 are directed to operate the
Select List dated 15.04.2011 (Annexure R-3/1) or dated
25.06.2012 (Annexure R-3/2) and give effect to the same by
appointing the petitioner who was placed at serial number
1 at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(ii) The fact that Select List is about 11/12 years old cannot
make any difference, as this petition is pending since 2012
and by interim order dated 13.8.2012, this court made the
appointments subject to the final outcome of this writ
petition.
(iii) In case, appointments have been made and no vacancy
is available for the petitioner then the present incumbent
occupying the post of Gram Razgar Sahayak at Gram
Panchayat-Raipur, Janpad Panchayat Teothar, District
Rewa be terminated since his/her appointment was subject
to outcome of this writ petition.
(iv) The respondents are liable to pay cost of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only), out of which Rs.8,000/-
(Rupees Eight Thousand only) shall be paid to the
petitioner through digital transfer in his bank account
within a period of 30 days. The remaining cost of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) shall be paid in favour
of Secretary, M.P. State Legal Services Authority within the
aforesaid period, for wasting the precious and scarce time
of the Court which could have been utilized for hearing and
deciding more pressing matters. The MPSLSA shall donate
this amount to the Permanent Artificial Organ
Transplantation Centre, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
Medical College, Jabalpur.
(v) The respondents are at liberty to recover the said cost
from erring officials/employees after following due process
of law.
(vi) The respondents are directed to file a compliance report
of deposit of cost with the Registry within 45 (forty-five)
days. On failure to deposit the cost, this case be listed under
the caption of "Direction" as PUD for execution qua cost."
2. The review petitioner Smt. Jyoti Shukla and respondent No.6 both
applied pursuant to the advertisement for Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Gram
Panchayat Raipur, Janpad Panchayat Teothar, Rewa.
2.1 Incidentally, the name of review petitioner did not find place in the
Select List but the name of respondent No.6 was placed in the first as well as
second Select List, at Serial No.1.
2.2 It is pertinent to point out that review petitioner never assailed her
non-selection/non appointment either before Appellate Authority or before this
Court at the time when the cause arose to her i.e. 2012.
3. Whereas, petition filed by respondent No.6 herein filed W.P.
No.10943/2012 which culminated into passing of order under review on
02.09.2023.
4. The review petitioner is before this Court on the ground that the order
under review could not have been passed without noticing and hearing the
review petition.
5. For this purpose, petitioner has placed reliance on 2009 (2) SCC 703
(Asit Kumar Kar vs. State of West Bengal and others) wherein Apex Court
held as under:
"4. It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders should
be passed against a party without hearing him. This is the
fundamental principle of natural justice and it is a basic canon
of jurisprudence. In the seven-Judge Constitution Bench of this
Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2 SCC 602] it has
been observed in para 55 thereof:
"55. ... So also the violation of the principles of natural justice
renders the act a nullity."
5. One of the counsel relied upon another five-Judge Constitution
Bench decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra [(2002) 4
SCC 388] . It is true that in para 9 of the judgment it has been
observed that this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
cannot hold as invalid a judgment of this Court by treating it as
a nullity. However, the aforesaid judgment does not say that we
cannot pass a recall order when that order has been passed
without hearing a party.
6. There is a distinction between a petition under Article 32, a
review petition and a recall petition. While in a review petition
the Court considers on merits where there is an error apparent
on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not
go into the merits but simply recalls an order which was passed
without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party."
6. After having heard learned counsel for rival parties and having perused
the record, it is obvious that reliefs as claimed by petitioner cannot be granted
for the following reasons :-
(i) The review petitioner never challenged her non selection/non
appointment at the relevant point of time i.e. 2012 or immediately
thereafter whereas, respondent No.6 filed petition in 2012 itself and
ultimately when the said petition was allowed on 2nd September,
2023, the review petitioner woke up from her slumber to agitate the
issue raising the boggy of violation of principles of natural justice.
(ii) The reliance placed on the decision of Asit Kumar Kar
(supra) is misplaced since bare perusal of factual scenario in the
said case reveals that Apex Court while accepting the apology of
contemnor in a Contempt Petition directed cancellation of licenses
for the auction held on certain dates without hearing the license
holders. In this factual background, Apex Court relying upon
principles of natural justice of audi alteram partem recalled its
order of cancelling of license.
(iii) Per contra, in the instant case, no such direction had been passed
which may adversely affect the review petitioner since the review petitioner had
though applied but was not even selected much less appointed on the post of
Gram Rozgar Sahayak and yet review petitioner slept over her cause of action
for more than 10 years. Thus, the said judgment is of no avail to review
petitioner.
7. In the absence of any palpable error on the face of record, review
petition stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU)
JUDGE
YS
