Termination carrying civil consequences cannot be ordered without affording the employee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner was selected pursuant to an advertisement dated 22 August 2018 and appointed as Lecturer (Mathematics) at Inter College, Khirkhet, by appointment order dated 12 December 2018. She joined the institution thereafter.

Her services were subsequently terminated by the Committee of Management through an order dated 5 September 2020, following orders dated 2 September 2020 passed by the Secretary, Secondary Education, and 3 September 2020 passed by the Chief Education Officer, Almora.

The respondents questioned the legality of the selection process, asserting that an earlier advertisement dated 8 March 2017 had not complied with the Uttarakhand School Education Council (Amendment) Regulations, 2017.

The petitioner contended that her appointment was based on the subsequent advertisement dated 22 August 2018 and that the selection complied with the amended Regulations. She further argued that her services were terminated without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing.

The State and the Committee of Management admitted that the petitioner had been selected pursuant to the 22 August 2018 advertisement, that the selection complied with the amended Regulations, and that no hearing had been afforded before termination.

Whether the respondents could terminate the petitioner’s appointment on the basis of findings relating to the selection process pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 8 March 2017, when her appointment was made pursuant to the subsequent advertisement dated 22 August 2018

Whether the petitioner’s services could be terminated without affording her a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in view of the civil consequences of the termination order

The Court applied the Uttarakhand School Education Regulations, 2009, as amended by the Uttarakhand School Education Council (Amendment) Regulations, 2017.

It relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Girish Chandra Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, W.P. No. 528 of 2017, decided on 9 November 2017, which held that the 2017 amendment was prospective and not retrospective.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, holding that an order terminating employment and carrying civil consequences cannot ordinarily be passed without giving the affected person a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Court found that the Secretary’s order concerned the selection process arising from the advertisement dated 8 March 2017, whereas the petitioner’s appointment resulted from the distinct advertisement dated 22 August 2018.

The respondents themselves admitted that the latter advertisement and the resulting selection complied with the amended 2009 Regulations.

Consequently, the alleged defect in the earlier selection process could not, without further legal justification, sustain termination of the petitioner’s appointment.

Independently, the termination order had civil consequences, but the petitioner was admittedly given no notice or opportunity of hearing before the adverse orders were passed.

The orders therefore violated the principles of natural justice and were legally unsustainable.

The respondents were nevertheless granted liberty to pass a fresh order, if required, after providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing and acting in accordance with law.

Pending applications were disposed of.