Kaushal Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bhuneshwari Shukla W/o Shri Om Kumar Shukla Aged About 50 Years Working As Assistant Professor At Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce And Science College, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

7. 2

6. Ku. Renuka Sharma D/o Shri Ram Prasad Sharma Aged About 43 Years Working As Assistant Professor At Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce And Science College, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Ashish Borkewar S/o D.R. Borkewar Aged About 46 Years Working As Assistant Professor At Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce And Science College, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh WA No. 228 of 2021 ---- Respondents Kaushal Chandrakar S/o Shri Harakh Ram Chandrakar Aged About 51 Years R/o Imlibhata Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Khamhan Lal Chandrakar S/o Bishat Lal Chandrakar Aged About 58 Years R/o Old Basti Kurmipara Jagannathi Chowk, Ward No. 17, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Satbir Singh S/o Shri Har Dutt Singh Saluja Aged About 50 Years R/o Ganjpara Purani Mandi Road, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Rajeswar Prasad Chandrakar S/o Raghunath Prasad Chandrakar Aged About 41 Years R/o Ayodhya Nagar Near Shriram Vatika, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Jeevan Lal Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Dauram Lal Chandrakar Aged About 45 Years R/o KN Oil Mill Road, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Versus ---- Appellants State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education DKS Bhavan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Vice Chancellor Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce And Science College Through Its President / Director, Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce and Science College, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. Principal Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce And Science College, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Chandrahu Shikshan Samiti Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. Ramnarayan Chandrakar S/o Natthuram Chandrakar Aged About 72 Years Working As Assistant Professor At Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce And Science College, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3

9. Smt. Bhuneshwari Shukla W/o Shri Om Kumar Shukla Aged About 50 Years Working As Assistant Professor At Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce And Science College, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. Ku. Renuka Sharma D/o Shri Ram Prasad Sharma Working As Assistant Professor At Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce And Science College, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. Ashish Borkewar S/o Dr. Borkewar Aged About 46 Years Working As Assistant Professor At Shantri Bai Arts, Commerce And Science College, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondents : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.2 For Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Mr. P. Sam Koshy, Judge Hon'ble Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

25.04.2023

1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1, Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.7.

2. The present intra Court appeals bearing WA No. 219 of 2021 and WA No. 228 of 2021 have been filed by the appellants against the order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2883 4 of 2010 (Kaushal Chandrakar & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and WPS No.4035 of 2007 (Kaushal Chandrakar & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), respectively, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of both the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeals have been filed by the writ petitioners / appellants.

3. Undisputed facts of the cases are that the writ petitioners were appointed on vacant post of Assistant Professor by respondent No.3/College after due approval of respondent No.2-University in accordance with Statute No.28 promulgated by Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University and thereafter they were appointed on 19.09.2005. It is further case of the writ petitioners that since they were already working on the post of Assistant Professor, they were exempted from undergoing period of probation vide order dated 19.09.2005 and thereafter they were appointed on 19.09.2005, but they were stopped working from December, 2005 and ultimately they filed writ petition being Writ Petition No.291/2007 for salary and thereafter again they were required to file amended writ petition (S) No.4035/2007. In that writ petition, the order of termination dated 03.11.2006 was filed by the respondents while filing the reply, then they came to know about their termination and that order has been impugned in Writ Petition (S) No.2883/2010.

4. Return has been filed by respondent No.3 therein, opposing the averments made in the writ petitions and specifically pleaded that work of the writ petitioners was not found satisfactorily and they were stopped 5 teaching work in the college and pursuant to which, they were served with the notice dated 03.09.2006 and 06.10.2006 and thereafter, the Governing Body of respondent No.5 had taken a decision on 16.10.2006 and ultimately, the impugned order dated 03.11.2006 terminating the services of the petitioners had been passed, which is strictly in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, has committed grave illegality, which requires interference by this Court. He placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another1, Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others 2 and Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences and Another3.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttrakhand and Others v. Sureshwati4.

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned and other documents appended with writ appeals. 1 2 3 4