Employee Can't Be Terminated By Applying Recruitment Rules Or Guidelines Issued After His Appointment: Chhattisgarh HC
The Chhattisgarh High Court in a notable ruling has held that an employee cannot be terminated by applying recruitment rules introduced after his appointment.
The Court was considering Writ Petition seeking direction to Respondent No. 4 to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the order regarding the experience marks to the petitioner for appointment to the post of Aangan Badi Karyakarta.
The single-bench of Justice Rajani Dubey observed, "It is not clear from order dated 16.07.2015 (Annexure R-2) that on what ground service of the petitioner was terminated from her previous post. It is clear that respondent authorities have not considered this fact that appointment of the petitioner was in the year 2007 and guidelines were issued on 02.04.2008 (Annexure R/1) and she was working in her previous post for seven years."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Anubhav Vatsa while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate R. N. Pusty.
The Petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta on 01.04.2007 had already given her services to the Department of Women and Child Development for a period of 07 years. In the year 2014-15, advertisement was published for inviting applications for the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta in Petitioner's native village and she submitted her application accordingly along with no objection certificate and experience certificate by the Project Officer. On the same, the Petitioner was granted six marks for experience and the Petitioner’s name was in the second position of the seniority list. The District Women and Child Development Officer issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner stating that her previous posting to be fraudulent as per the selection Rule 1.5 of Aanganbadi Karyakarta and directed to the petitioner to submit reply within 07 days. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted her reply, whereby she clearly stated that she had already submitted the name of her native residency in her previous selection process also.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that she is eligible for six marks of experience as Aanganbadi Karyakarta. He averred that the Petitioner has not committed any fraud on her part and the she is a victim of arbitrary act of Respondent No. 4, who has not complied with the order of Respondent No. 2, so, Respondent No. 4 may be directed to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the order regarding the experience marks to the petitioner for appointment to the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarta
On the other hand, Counsel for the State argued that Clause 1.4 of the guidelines clearly states that the Aaganbadi Karyakarta/ Sahayika who have been dismissed from the services earlier on the ground of irregularities would not be entitled for second recruitment and Clause 1.5 of the Guidelines/Recruitment Rules states that the applicants must be of the resident of the village, Aanganbadi is situated and the posts are advertised for. He thus averred that according to Clause 1.4 & 1.5, the Petitioner is not entitled for the post of Aaganbadi Karyakarta as she had obtained recruitment on the basis of wrongful information for which she has been terminated from the service, therefore, she is not entitled for the marks on the ground of experience as she got selected on the post of Aaganbadi Karyakarta in the year 2007 in violation of recruitment guidelines. It was contended that the Petitioner was appointed in violation of them guidelines issued and therefore, she is not entitled for the marks for experience. It was submitted that the appointment of the Petitioner was void ab initio, therefore, she was not entitled to be awarded marks for experience.
The Court found that it is clear from no objection certificate that the petitioner’s native place was mentioned as village-Murdanda and not clear from order that on what ground service of the petitioner was terminated from her previous post. The Court found that the Respondent Authorities failed to consider that the appointment of petitioner was in the year 2007 and guidelines were issued on 02.04.2008.
The Court accordingly partly allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Satyawati Durgam vs. State of Chhattisgarh Employee
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Anubhav Vatsa, Advocate Mr. Atul Pandey
Respondent- Government Advocate R. N. Pusty
Click here to read/ download the Order:
