Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6792 of 2018 1 - Punyvas Baghel S/o Shri Lachindar Baghel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Devda Block And Tahsil Bakawand District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Along with WPS No. 6768 of 2018 1 - Smt. Bindu Dhruv W/o Shri Daulal Dhruv Aged About 42 Years R/o. Village Kulgaon Post Sadgud, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh Along with --- Respondent(s) -2- WPS No. 6784 of 2018
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Amita Kashyap W/o Shri Dinesh Kashyap, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village Erikpal, Post Ermur Block Lohandiguda, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantarlaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Along with WPS No. 6789 of 2018 1 - Smt. Dhanmati Sethiya W/o Shri Tarun Sethiya Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post Nangur Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Along with WPS No. 6783 of 2018 1 - Smt. Gajbati Baghel W/o Shri Dalsay Bagehl Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Mahakapal (Khaspara) Post Teli Marenga Block And Police Station - Darbha, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 3 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Along with WPS No. 6766 of 2018 1 - Lachhuram Kashyap S/o. Shri Sonuram Kashyap Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village And Post Chhapar Bhanpuri Tahsil Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Along with WPS No. 6793 of 2018 1 - Dharmuram Durga S/o Late Shri Ramuram Durga Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post - Kodenar Rly. Colony, Tahsil Bastanar, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh Along with --- Respondent(s) -4- WPS No. 6794 of 2018 1 - Suman Kashyap D/o Shri B.R. Kashyap, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Village Bhond, Post Lamker Block Bastar, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners For State : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. Heard.
Decision
2. All these petitions are being heard and disposed of by this common order as common questions of law and facts are involved. 3. The petitioners have challenged the advertisement dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure P/11), the consequential memo dated 25.09.2018 and the proceeding initiated thereof and further, a direction has been sought to respondent No.2 to allow them to continue in service. 4. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners are residents of the District Bastar. An advertisement was issued by respondent No.2 for vacant posts of Panchayat Secretaries for Janpad Panchayat, Tokapal, Bastanar and Lohandiguda on 26.11.2016. There were a total of 10 posts. It would be noteworthy to mention here that the 5 advertisement was issued to fill up the backlog vacancy for members of SC, ST and OBC. 5. After completion of the recruitment process, respondent No.2 issued an order of selection on 22.03.2017. Clause No.18 of the select list states that the appointments of eight panchayat secretaries of Janpad Panchayat, Bastanar, would be subject to the final outcome of the matter pending before the Divisional Commissioner. 6. The appointment orders were issued to the petitioners, and they joined their services. 7. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.08.2017 terminated the services of the petitioners/eight Panchayat secretaries of Janpad Panchayat, Bastanar. 8. The petitioners challenged the order dated 30.08.2017 by filing an appeal before the Court of Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur on various grounds. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was partly allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated 16.04.2018, and the order of termination dated 30.08.2017 was set aside. In the concluding paragraph, the Commissioner directed the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement. 9. The petitioners made representations before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) on 20.04.2018 and the Collector on 26.06.2018. 10. Respondent No.2 issued a fresh advertisement on 07.03.2018 for filling up 13 vacant posts of Panchayat Secretaries for Janpad Panchayat Tokapal, Bastanar and Lohandiguda and against the issuance of the -6- said advertisement, the petitioners have filed these petitions. 11. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would argue that an advertisement to fill up 10 backlog vacancies of panchayat secretaries was issued by respondent No.2 on 26.11.2016. He would contend that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process and were selected and appointed. He would further contend that the petitioners had joined their services, but their services were terminated vide order dated 30.08.2017, according to Clause 18 of the order of Selection. He would also contend that in the advertisement dated 26.11.2016, there was no whisper with regard to the pending litigation in the Court of the Commissioner, Bastar, and it was inserted in the selection order. He would also submit that the petitioners were selected and appointed against the sanctioned and vacant posts; therefore, a right had accrued in their favour. He would further argue that the petitioners challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Division, Bastar, Jagdalpur, and it was partly allowed vide order dated 16.04.2018. He would also argue that the posts are still lying vacant with respondent No.2, and incorrect information was furnished to the Court of Commissioner. He would contend that a direction was issued by the Commissioner to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement in services, but till date, no decision has been taken despite repeated representations. He would further state that respondent No.2 issued a fresh advertisement dated 07.03.2018 to fill up 13 posts of panchayat secretaries which is illegal, arbitrary and malafide as the petitioners were appointed pursuant to a due selection 7 process and the order has been passed by the Commissioner to consider the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement, therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have reinstated the petitioners instead of issuing a fresh advertisement. He would pray to allow these petitions. 12. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Mishra. They would submit that departmental proceedings were initiated against eight panchayat secretaries, who were appointed prior to the petitioners, and their services were terminated. Those eight secretaries had approached the Divisional Commissioner against the orders of termination, and during the intermediate period, a fresh advertisement dated 07.03.2018 was issued. They would contend that the matter was pending consideration before the learned Commissioner, and this fact was disclosed through Clause 18 of the order of selection dated 22.03.2017. They would further contend that as the petitioners were appointed subject to the final outcome of the appeal preferred by the panchayat secretaries, whose services were terminated prior to the advertisement dated 07.03.2018, the petitioners have no right to claim reinstatement or continuation of their services. They would also contend that, as there is a vacancy, the advertisement dated 07.03.2018 was issued. They would submit that the petitioners have no right over the post of panchayat secretaries, and these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 13. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 14. The petitioners were appointed to the post of panchayat secretaries pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.11.2016. In the advertisement, -8- it was not stipulated that their appointments would be subject to the final outcome of the appeal/revision preferred by the earlier panchayat secretaries, whose services were terminated. In the order of Selection dated 22.03.2017, this fact was mentioned in Clause 18. 15. The petitioners accepted the selection order and also accepted the offer of appointment and never challenged clause 18 of the order of selection dated 22.03.2017. 16. The services of the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 30.08.2017 on the ground that the appeal filed by the earlier panchayat secretaries was allowed by the Commissioner. 17. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing Appeal No.22/B- 121/2017-18 before the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, and it was partly allowed vide order dated 16.04.2018. 18. Learned Commissioner set aside the order dated 30.08.2017 and directed respondent No.2 to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement or continuation in the services. 19. The petitioners made representations before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.G.), on 20.04.2018 and before the Collector on 26.06.2018, but till date, the representations have not been decided. 20. Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 07.03.2018 for filling up 13 posts of panchayat secretaries, whereas the appeal preferred by the petitioners was partly allowed vide order dated 16.04.2018. They preferred these writ petitions, and interim orders were passed in their favor vide order dated 10.10.2018/11.10.2018. 9 21. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, these petitions are disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (C.G.), and the District Collector, Bastar, to decide the pending representations of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. The petitioners would be at liberty to make fresh representation(s), if so advised. 23. For a period of 90 days, the interim order granted earlier shall remain effective. The advertisement dated 07.03.2018 shall be subject to the final outcome of the representation(s) made by the petitioners. 24. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), these petitions are disposed of. SD/- Rekha (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge