Pooran Devi Daughter Of Shri Ram ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 69 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1257/2019

1.     Pooran Devi Daughter Of Shri Ram Babu, Aged About 35
       Years, Resident Of Village And Post Jurehra, Tehsil And
       Panchayat Samiti Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
2.     Ramphal S/o Shri Bhadain, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
       Village Netawadi, Tehsil And Panchayat Samiti Kaman,
       District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
       Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
       (Raj.)
2.     Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayatraj
       Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
       (Raj.)
3.     Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
4.     Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur (Raj.)
5.     Block    Elementary         Education         Officer,    Deeg,   District
       Bharatpur (Raj.)
6.     Principal/    Head      Master        Cum       Panchayat     Elementary
       Education Officer (P.E.E.O.), Govt. Adarsh Sr. Secondary
       School      Badripur,      Panchayat          Samiti      Deeg,   District
       Bharatpur (Raj.)
7.     Chandra Shekhar Son Of Shri Hari Babu Kaushik, Aged
       About 39 Years, R/o Rajeev Colony, T.V. Tower Ke Pass,
       Deeg, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur
8.     Banke Lal Sharma, Son Of Shri Krishna Murari Sharma,
       Aged About 32 Years, R/o Near Gas Agency, Nagar Road,
       Deeg, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.D. Khandelwal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini, Additional Government Counsel Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jain, Advocate for Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj, Advocate

(2 of 4) [SAW-1257/2019]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

03/01/2023

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated

27.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the

appellants' writ petition has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the

learned Single Judge fell in error of law in dismissing the petition

as the services of the appellants were terminated without giving

any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submits that the

reasons on which the appointment has been cancelled are not

foregone conclusion. If the petitioners had been afforded an

opportunity of hearing, they would have satisfied the authority

that the appointment was not liable to be cancelled because the

petitioners could have applied at the other place as well.

The view taken by the learned Single Judge is that in

view of the Circular dated 01.02.2017, a person could not have

applied at more than one place.

It is not in dispute that the appellants had applied at

more than one place. It appears that the process of selection was

stayed because of judicial intervention as large number of

petitions have been filed. Those petitions, i.e. (Bodu Ram Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.2231/2017 and batch of petitions) were dismissed vide order

dated 12.05.2017. Thereafter, the process of selection was

proceeded further. The candidates, who were above the

appellants, were found to be residents of the other States. In this

situation, the appellants came to be appointed. Later on when a

(3 of 4) [SAW-1257/2019]

complaint was made and inquiry was also conducted, it was found

that these very appellants had already applied for appointment in

other Gram Panchyat. This fact has not been disputed, therefore,

the result is foregone conclusion.

The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants

is that the principles of natural justice have been violated and,

therefore, only on this ground they are entitled to relief, in the

peculiar circumstances and the admitted facts of the present case,

cannot be accepted. Principles of natural justice are not unruly

horse. In exceptional cases, an action though taken without giving

any notice could be sustained as has been laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University

& Ors Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases

529. The rule of exception was propounded as below:-

24. The principle that in addition to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed in several cases. In K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India (1984(1) SCC 43), Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. (as he then was) also laid down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved. It was observed: quoting Wade Administrative Law, (5th Ed.PP.472-475) as follows:

"....it is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when principles of natural justice are to apply, nor as their scope and extent. ....There must also have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so forth".

Since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of prejudice in several cases. The above ruling

(4 of 4) [SAW-1257/2019]

and various other rulings taking the same view have been exhaustively referred to in State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma (1996(3) SCC 364). In that case, the principle of 'prejudice' has been further elaborated. The same principle has been reiterated again in Rajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.

25. The 'useless formality' theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from the class of cases of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" referred to above,- there has been considerable debate of the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta referred to above. This Court surveyed the views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J. and Straughton L.J. etc. in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, De. Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the Court will be prejudging the issue. Some others have said, that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via- media rules. We do not think it necessary, in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on the facts of a particular case.

26. It will be sufficient, for the purpose of the case of Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan to show that his case will fall within the exceptions stated by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.C. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan, namely, that on the admitted or indisputable facts, only one view is possible. In that event no prejudice can be said to have been caused to Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan though notice has not been issued.

In view of above, we are of the opinion that the present

is not a case warranting interference with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

The present appeal is dismissed accordingly.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Ashish Kumar /35

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)