1 - Parwati W/o Heera Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bhedia, Tahsil v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Woman And Child Welfare Department, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5736-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 70 of 2025 1 - Parwati W/o Heera Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bhedia, Tahsil- Pratappur, District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Woman And Child Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Program Officer Women And Child Welfare Department, Surajpur, P.S., Post And Tahsil Surajpur, District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Unified Women And Child Welfare Department Through Project Officer, Pratappur, P.S., Post And Tahsil Surajpur, District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Pratappur, P.S. And P.O.- Pratappur, District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector, Surajpur (Woman And Child Welfare Department), Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Collector Surajpur District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Chandramani W/o Jashlal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Bhedia, P.S., P.O. And Tahsil Pratappur, District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner Before Hon'ble Single Bench) ... Respondent(s) 2 For appellant For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. Mr. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate for Res. No. 7 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31. 01.2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant who was the respondent No. 7 before the writ court against the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5917/2016 whereby
Decision
the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and the impugned order dated 29/08/2016 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Place- Ambikapur and the order of the Collector, Surajpur are set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ appellant was appointed on the post of Anganbadi worker and was posted at Angarbadi centre, Bhuiyapara (Bhedhiya) through her appointment order dated 22.09.2009. She has got appointment after successfully clearing the recruitment process under the advertisement issued by the Collector, Surajpur. On 15.12.2012, the writ petitioner Chandramani has made a complaint At Public Grievance Redressal Camp at Village- Revati and complained that the writ appellant Parvati has obtained appointment on the basis of forged certificate and mark- sheets and prayed for proper inquiry in the matter. The Collector, Surajpur has made an inquiry and found substance in the complaint and vide its order dated 03.06.2013, the appointment of the present writ appellant on the post of Angarbadi worker was canceled and directed the authority to appoint the eligible candidate. Thereafter, vide its order dated 19.07.2013, the present writ petitioner Chandramani has been appointed by the Project Officer, Women and Child Department, Pratappur. The present appellant filed a 3 revision against her termination order dated 19/07/2013 before the Collector, Surajpur. The Collector, Surajpur has passed its order on 12.12.2015 whereby the termination order of the present writ appellant Parvati was set aside and the appointment order of the writ petitioner Chandramani was also set aside and hold that the documents annexed by the writ appellant Parwati along with her application form for the appointment on the post of Anganbadi worker was true and genuine. 3. Against the order dated 12.12.2015 passed by the Collector, Surajpur, the writ petitioner Chandramani had filed a revision before the Commissioner, Place- Ambikapur which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Surajpur vide its order dated 29.08.2016. The Commissioner has also held in its order that the documents of the writ appellant Parvati is found true and genuine. 4. The order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja was under challenge before the learned Single Bench of this Court in WPS No. 5917/2016 filed by the writ petitioner Chandramani. The said writ petition was came up for hearing on 23.10.2024 and after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition by holding that, before the Collector, Surajpur, the present writ petitioner Chandramani was not made as a party and when the petitioner was appointed and the writ petitioner was removed, she had already worked up till 04.04.2016. It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that if certain rights were created in favour of the writ petitioner, before passing any order, she was required to be heard and any order behind the back of the parties which affects the right of the petitioner for removal cannot be passed. It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that the Commissioner has also ignored the above said fact and considering the entirety of the fact available in the case, both the orders of Commissioner, Surguja dated 29.08.2016 and order of Collector, Surajpur dated 12.12.2015 have been set aside by the learned Single Judge. Liberty was also given to the writ appellant who was the respondent No. 7 and the 4 writ petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy as may be available to her under the law. 5. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that the writ appellant is more meritorious candidate and has initially appointed on the post of Anganbadi worker, she worked up to 19/07/2013 and ultimately the Collector, Surajpur and the Commissioner, Surguja have found her certificates genuine despite that she has been removed from service. The order passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division was well merited and considered all the facts of the case, yet the learned Single Judge has upset the finding recorded by the Commissioner, Surguja on the ground that the writ petitioner was not heard before passing the order by the Collector. The opportunity of hearing was provided to the writ petitioner before the Commissioner during the revision proceeding and therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge affects the substantial legal rights of the writ appellant and the said order suffers with material irregularity and is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as private respondent supported the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the writ appeal. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that before the Collector, Surajpur, the writ petitioner was not made as party/non applicant in the revision petition filed by the present writ appellant. From the perusal of the document (Annexure-P/13) annexed with the writ petition, it is apparent that she neither made as a party/ non applicant nor being heard. When the writ petitioner was being appointed vide order dated 19.07.2013 and her appointment order was challenged before the Collector, Surajpur, she was 6. 7. 8. 5 required to be heard before her removal. She has already worked for about 1½ years and accrues her right on the said post yet she was not made as a party/ non applicant in the case before the Collector, Surajpur. The issue that she was not being heard before her removal has not been considered by the Commissioner, Surguja also and has dismissed her revision vide order dated 29.08.2016. 9. Learned Single Judge, after considered the fact that the writ petitioner has acrued her right over the said post of Anganbadi worker and before passing any order of her removal, she was required to be heard and no order can be passed behind her back and considering the proceeding drawn by the Collector, Surajpur as well as by the Commissioner, Surguja, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the Collector, dated 12.12.2015 and Commissioner, Surguja Devision dated 29.08.2016. further the learned Single Judge has reserved the liberty to avail apprpriate remedy as may be available to her under the law in favour of the present writ appellant which cannot be said to be any faulty or perverse under the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law applicable to it. 10. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. 11. In the result, we do not find sufficient ground to interfere in the impugned order by way of this writ appeal and therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.02.18 15:16:33 +0530