Smt. Poonam Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1053865
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJun-27-2013
AppellantSmt. Poonam Singh
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
in the high court of madhya pradesh : jabalpur w.p.no.7256 of 2012 smt. poonam singh versus state of m.p. & others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- shri a.p.singh, learned counsel for petitioner. shri r.p.tiwari, learned g.a. for the state/respondents no.1 to 4. shri a.k.pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- w.p.no.14403 of 2012 smt. poonam singh versus state of m.p. & others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- shri a.p.singh, learned counsel for petitioner. shri r.p.tiwari, learned g.a. for the state/respondents no.1 to 4. shri a.k.pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- present : hon'ble shri justice r.s.jha order (27-06-2013) as both the petitions involve connected and identical issues, therefore, they are heard and decided together concomitantly with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 1-5-2012 passed by the chief executive officer, jila panchayat anuppur, district anuppur by which the petitioner has been informed that as her contractual appointment on the post of quality monitor in the mid-day meal programme has not been extended by the state coordination mid-day meal programme council (hereinafter referred to as the “state council”.), therefore, her contractual engagement on the post is discontinued.3. the brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was initially engaged as quality monitor in the mid-day meal programme by order dated 29-6-2007 for a period of two years which was extendable by one year per extention. the petitioner was granted periodical extention which is evident from the order dated 1-7-2011 and others and, therefore, she continued to work on the said post till 2012 when the aforesaid impugned order was issued by the chief executive officer.4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed by the state council and her extention was also required to be considered by the council but the chief executive officer on account of malafides has issued the impugned order and, therefore, the same be quashed.5. subsequent to the filing of w.p.no.7256/2012 the state council issued a communication to the chief executive officer, jila panchayat, anuppur on 10-7-2012 regarding non-extention of the petitioner's services as contractual quality monitor, which has also been assailed by the petitioner on identical grounds in w.p.no.14403/2012 .6. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, after being engaged in 2007, was doing exemplary work and in fact was given a commendatory certificate for the good work she was doing which has been annexed with the petitioner as annexure p-17 in w.p.no.7256/2012. it is submitted that when the respondent no.5 who has been impleaded by the name too charge as chief executive officer, jila panchayat, anuppur, he started demanding presence of the petitioner and others even after 5 o'clock in the evening which became difficult for the petitioner on account of the fact that she had given birth to a child, which led to show cause notices being issued to the petitioner. it is stated that though the petitioner has filed reply to the show cause notices but at the insistence of the respondent no.5, as is evident from the document, ex.p-8, filed by the petitioner in w.p.no.7256/2012, the impugned order dated 10-7-2012 in w.p.no.14403/2012 had been passed whereby the state council had informed that the contractual period of the petitioner has not been extended.7. it is submitted that the petitioner's services record till the date of joining of respondent no.5 was excellent but only on account of malafides her service record was spoiled and adverse remarks were made and notices were given to her. it is submitted that the state council, only on the basis of the letters issued by the respondent no.5, has not extended the contractual period of the petitioner without taking into consideration the replies filed by the petitioner before the authorities or giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing which was necessary on account of the fact that action was being taken against the petitioner pursuant to the notices issued to her.8. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in such circumstances the impugned orders be quashed and the petitioner be permitted to continue as contractual quality monitor in the mid-day meal programme.9. the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the state/respondents, per contra, submit that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for a period of two years which was extendable by one year. it is submitted that the petitioner's contractual period was not extended beyond march, 2012 and in such circumstances, the period of her contractual appointment is over and, therefore, the writ and the relief prayed for by the petitioner deserve to be rejected being misconceived.10. it is further submitted that as per clause-2 of the appointment order of the petitioner, annexure p-1, the chief executive officer, i.e. the respondent no.5 was required to assess the work of the petitioner and the council on the basis of the assessment was required to take a decision regarding the extention. it is submitted that the petition's work during the period concerned was not good on account of which several complaints of the local residents were received and in spite of cautions and notices being issued by respondent no.5 no improvement was shown by the petitioner in her work and in such circumstances the respondent no.5 assessed the work of the petitioner as not good, on the basis of which, the council has issued order dated 10-7-2012 deciding not to extend the contractual period of the petitioner which cannot be found fault with.11. the learned counsel appearing for the state further submits that in view of clause-2 of the appointment of the petitioner opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the petitioner while taking a decision regarding extension of the period and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.12. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record.13. on a perusal of the record it is apparent that the period of contractual appointment of the petitioner came to an end in march, 2012. the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 has stated that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and, therefore, adverse comments in that respect were forwarded to the state council in view of clause-2 of the contractual appointment order which was considered by the council which fact is also evident from a perusal of the order dated 10-7-2012 passed by the state council, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner at page no.43 in w.p.no.14403/2012. it is, however, seen that the respondent no.5 has himself annexed annexures r-1 and r-2 alongwith the return filed in w.p.no.14403/2012 and stated that as many as eight notices were given to the petitioner while the petitioner has asserted that detailed replies to all the notices were given by the petitioner but there is no mention regarding consideration of the same in any of the documents on record.14. it is also apparent from a perusal of the order dated 10-7-2012 passed by the state council deciding not to extend services of the petitioner that the refusal of extention is based on the communication of the chief executive officer but there is no mention regarding consideration of the replies filed by the petitioner to the show cause notices.15. in the circumstances while i do not find any fault with the discontinuance of the petitioner's services on account of the fact that the period for contractual appointment of the petitioner is over, however, it is observed that the council, while taking a decision regarding extention of the petitioner's services, was required to apply its mind to the replies filed by the petitioner and the chief executive officer in the circumstances was required to forward all the documents including the replies of the petitioner to the council for consideration which appears not to have been done in the present petition.16. in the circumstances, i am of the considered opinion that the case for extention of the contractual period of the petitioner deserves to be considered by the council afresh after looking into all the relevant documents and records and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition to the state council within fifteen days of obtaining the same, the council shall call for the entire record, examine it and thereafter take a fresh decision regarding extention of the services of the petitioner in accordance with clause-2 of the appointment order of the petitioner, dated 29-6-2007 (annexure p-1).17. it is clarified that this court has not made any comments on the merits of the case not has it expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner for the extention of the contractual period. in the circumstances, the state council would be at liberty to examine the entire matter and take a fresh decision in the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of the representation.18. with the aforeasaid directions both the petitions filed by the petitioner stand disposed of accordingly. a copy of this order be placed in the record of w.p.no.14403/2012. (r.s.jha) judge mct
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P.No.7256 of 2012 Smt. Poonam Singh Versus State of M.P. & others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A. for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.No.14403 of 2012 Smt. Poonam Singh Versus State of M.P. & others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A. for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S.Jha ORDER

(27-06-2013) As both the petitions involve connected and identical issues, therefore, they are heard and decided together concomitantly with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 1-5-2012 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Anuppur, District Anuppur by which the petitioner has been informed that as her contractual appointment on the post of Quality Monitor in the mid-day meal programme has not been extended by the State Coordination Mid-day Meal Programme Council (hereinafter referred to as the “State Council”.), therefore, her contractual engagement on the post is discontinued.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was initially engaged as Quality Monitor in the mid-day meal programme by order dated 29-6-2007 for a period of two years which was extendable by one year per extention. The petitioner was granted periodical extention which is evident from the order dated 1-7-2011 and others and, therefore, she continued to work on the said post till 2012 when the aforesaid impugned order was issued by the Chief Executive Officer.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed by the State Council and her extention was also required to be considered by the Council but the Chief Executive Officer on account of malafides has issued the impugned order and, therefore, the same be quashed.

5. Subsequent to the filing of W.P.No.7256/2012 the State Council issued a communication to the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Anuppur on 10-7-2012 regarding non-extention of the petitioner's services as contractual Quality Monitor, which has also been assailed by the petitioner on identical grounds in W.P.No.14403/2012 .

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, after being engaged in 2007, was doing exemplary work and in fact was given a commendatory certificate for the good work she was doing which has been annexed with the petitioner as Annexure P-17 in W.P.No.7256/2012. It is submitted that when the respondent No.5 who has been impleaded by the name too charge as Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Anuppur, he started demanding presence of the petitioner and others even after 5 O'Clock in the evening which became difficult for the petitioner on account of the fact that she had given birth to a child, which led to show cause notices being issued to the petitioner. It is stated that though the petitioner has filed reply to the show cause notices but at the insistence of the respondent No.5, as is evident from the document, Ex.P-8, filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.7256/2012, the impugned order dated 10-7-2012 in W.P.No.14403/2012 had been passed whereby the State Council had informed that the contractual period of the petitioner has not been extended.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner's services record till the date of joining of respondent No.5 was excellent but only on account of malafides her service record was spoiled and adverse remarks were made and notices were given to her. It is submitted that the State Council, only on the basis of the letters issued by the respondent No.5, has not extended the contractual period of the petitioner without taking into consideration the replies filed by the petitioner before the authorities or giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing which was necessary on account of the fact that action was being taken against the petitioner pursuant to the notices issued to her.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in such circumstances the impugned orders be quashed and the petitioner be permitted to continue as contractual Quality Monitor in the mid-day meal programme.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents, per contra, submit that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for a period of two years which was extendable by one year. It is submitted that the petitioner's contractual period was not extended beyond March, 2012 and in such circumstances, the period of her contractual appointment is over and, therefore, the writ and the relief prayed for by the petitioner deserve to be rejected being misconceived.

10. It is further submitted that as per Clause-2 of the appointment order of the petitioner, Annexure P-1, the Chief Executive Officer, i.e. the respondent No.5 was required to assess the work of the petitioner and the council on the basis of the assessment was required to take a decision regarding the extention. It is submitted that the petition's work during the period concerned was not good on account of which several complaints of the local residents were received and in spite of cautions and notices being issued by respondent No.5 no improvement was shown by the petitioner in her work and in such circumstances the respondent No.5 assessed the work of the petitioner as not good, on the basis of which, the council has issued order dated 10-7-2012 deciding not to extend the contractual period of the petitioner which cannot be found fault with.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the State further submits that in view of Clause-2 of the appointment of the petitioner opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the petitioner while taking a decision regarding extension of the period and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record.

13. On a perusal of the record it is apparent that the period of contractual appointment of the petitioner came to an end in March, 2012. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has stated that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and, therefore, adverse comments in that respect were forwarded to the State Council in view of Clause-2 of the contractual appointment order which was considered by the council which fact is also evident from a perusal of the order dated 10-7-2012 passed by the State Council, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner at page No.43 in W.P.No.14403/2012. It is, however, seen that the respondent No.5 has himself annexed Annexures R-1 and R-2 alongwith the return filed in W.P.No.14403/2012 and stated that as many as eight notices were given to the petitioner while the petitioner has asserted that detailed replies to all the notices were given by the petitioner but there is no mention regarding consideration of the same in any of the documents on record.

14. It is also apparent from a perusal of the order dated 10-7-2012 passed by the State Council deciding not to extend services of the petitioner that the refusal of extention is based on the communication of the Chief Executive Officer but there is no mention regarding consideration of the replies filed by the petitioner to the show cause notices.

15. In the circumstances while I do not find any fault with the discontinuance of the petitioner's services on account of the fact that the period for contractual appointment of the petitioner is over, however, it is observed that the council, while taking a decision regarding extention of the petitioner's services, was required to apply its mind to the replies filed by the petitioner and the Chief Executive Officer in the circumstances was required to forward all the documents including the replies of the petitioner to the council for consideration which appears not to have been done in the present petition.

16. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the case for extention of the contractual period of the petitioner deserves to be considered by the council afresh after looking into all the relevant documents and records and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition to the State Council within fifteen days of obtaining the same, the Council shall call for the entire record, examine it and thereafter take a fresh decision regarding extention of the services of the petitioner in accordance with Clause-2 of the appointment order of the petitioner, dated 29-6-2007 (Annexure P-1).

17. It is clarified that this Court has not made any comments on the merits of the case not has it expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner for the extention of the contractual period. In the circumstances, the State Council would be at liberty to examine the entire matter and take a fresh decision in the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of the representation.

18. With the aforeasaid directions both the petitions filed by the petitioner stand disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.14403/2012. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct