Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35165 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4791 of 2015 1 - Ghanshyam Singh S/o Chandrapal Singh, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Chilamakala Tahsil Rajpur District Balrampur Tamanujganj Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahandi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - The Commissioner, Surguja Division, Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajpur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Amit Buxy, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief:- 2 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the respondent No.5 (Annexure P-12). 10.3 Any other reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The present petition is being filed against the impugned order dated 13.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2/ Commissioner Surguja Division Surguja Ambikapur by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the removal order of the petitioner from the post of Siksha Karmi Grade- 3 has been dismissed by affirming the order of the Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Rajpur. The learned Commissioner without appreciating the material facts, evidence and documents produced by the petitioner dismissed the appeal and without issuing any show cause notice and giving any opportunity of hearing removed the petitioner from the said post, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. 3. Return has been filed by respective respondents and as per return of respondent No.5 it appears that after receiving the representation of the petitioner, in compliance of order passed by this Court, inadvertently the appointment order is issued in favour of petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and since the appointment order was itself illegal, therefore no right accrued in favour of petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is not having the requisite qualification and the appointment order was itself dehors the statutory applicable mandatory rules, therefore, compliance of principles of natural justice is not necessary. It is also stated that while dismissing the appeal by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, the reasoned and detailed findings have been recorded and it is also observed that the order of Hon’ble High Court has wrongly been interpreted while issuing appointment order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the 3 post of Supervisor in the Center Chingakala Tahsil Rajpur in the year 1991 under the non-formal education scheme after fulfilling all criteria for appointment of Instructor/ Supervisor prescribed by the Government. Thereafter the scheme came to an end in the year 2000 and a writ petition was filed by the Union of the petitioner registered
Decision
as WP No.1731/2005 and another connected matters which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 11.08.2010. The petitioner also filed a writ petition which was registered as WPS No.791/ 2013 and vide its order dated 22.03.2013 this Court disposed of the same in light of judgment passed by this Court in Chhattisgarh Rajya Panchayat Vaikalpik Shikshak Sangh & Others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Other connected matters, thereafter the petitioner made representation before the respondent No.5 on the post of Assistant Teacher Grade- 3 vide Annexure P-8. Thereafter after considering the recruitment Rules i.e. Chhattisgarh Teacher Panchayat Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service), Rules 2012 and instructions given time to time by the State Government vide Annexure P-9 dated 09.01.2014, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) subject Arts at Primary School Zingadand by respondent No.5. According to the appointment order, in order to obtain the qualifications of B.Ed., D.Ed. and T.E.T., 3 years relaxation was granted as per Clause 2 of appointment order. The petitioner joined his services and was performing his duties with sincerity and devotion. Suddenly an order dated 12.05.2014 (Annexure P-12) was passed by respondent No.5 and appointment order of the petitioner was canceled with immediate effect without giving any opportunity of hearing or following the principles of Audi Alteram Partem. Against which the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 91 of CG Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Commissioner, Surguja Division Surguja, Ambikapur which was registered as Panchayat Appeal No.222/ B- 121/ 2013-14 and the same was also dismissed by Commissioner vide its order dated 13.10.2015 against which this writ petition was filed. He further submits that cancellation of appointment order of the petitioner was only on the ground that 4 he did not possess the minimum qualification of T.E.T. and the impugned order itself grants relaxation to the petitioner to obtain such qualification within a period of 3 years and such order was passed without following the principles of natural justice, therefore, liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra learned counsel for respondents supports the impugned order and submit that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) as he was not holding the minimum qualification of Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.). Apart from this, the order of the Hon’ble Court passed in WPS No. 791/ 2013 does not indicate that an appointment has to be given to the petitioner which was in violation of Recruitment Rules, 2012, hence, the appointment order was canceled. Since the appointment order was void ab initio from the very beginning, there was no necessity to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The controversy involved in this case be reflected in a narrow campus. It appears from the record that the petitioner was working as instructor in non-formal education Scheme of State Government from the year 1991 to 2000. It appears that the scheme had come to an end in the year 2000 as a result the petitioner lost this job. It is evident that various writ petitions have been filed by such employee and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was also disposed of in terms of WP No.1731 of 2005 order dated 11.08.2010 it appears that a representation was made by the petitioner which was duly considered by respondent No.5 and an appointment order Annexure P-9 dated 09.01.2014 is issued. The record does not reflect as to whether before passing the cancellation order Annexure P-12 dated 12.05.2014 any show cause notice was issued. Apart from this perusal of this order indicates that the reason which has been assigned for cancellation of the appointment order is that the petitioner was not holding the T.E.T. certificate whereas the appointment order itself provides a relaxation of 3 years to obtain such minimum qualification of B.Ed./ D.Ed. & T.E.T. therefore, this order of cancellation of appointment cannot stand in the scrutiny of this Court. Apart from this the respondent has not been able to show 5 that the principles of natural justice was followed or petitioner was given any show cause notice before passing the impugned order. Naturally, if the impugned order is passed in favour of the petitioner and in compliance of that order, right has been crystallized in his favour. Time and again the Supreme Court has stated that if any order administrative action which resulted into civil consequences, the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem ought to be followed by the State. Please see Aureliano Fernandes Vs. State of Goa and others reported in (2024) 1 SCC 632 & M. V. Janardhan Reddy Vs. Vijaya Bank and others reported in (2008) 7 SCC 738. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557, in paragraph No. 19 has held as under: "19. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Expression 'civil consequences encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations, and non- pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life.” 9. Reiterating the same principles the Hon'ble Supreme Court again dealing with the same issue in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2) reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299 in paragraph Nos. 35 and 47 has held as under: "35. Any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice save and except certain contingencies of cases, would be a nullity. In A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602, this Court held: 6 "55.........No prejudice need be proved for enforcing the fundamental rights. Violation of a fundamental right itself renders the impugned action void. So also the violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity." 47. The purpose of the principles of natural justice is prevention of miscarriage of justice and hence the observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action. (See Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454], Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 713]}” 10. Therefore, in light of the above, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 13.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 12.05.2014 (Annexure P-12) are liable to be and hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. 11. Consequences to follow. 12. The writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.08.05 17:33:57 +0530 Parul (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE