1 2025:CGHC:50320-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 194 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Appellants versus 1 - Ramu Ram Sahu S/o Shri Belan Ram Sahu Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Mohtara, Post Latuva, Police Station Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Manmohan Singh Sahu S/o Shri Kriparam Sahu Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Sakari, Post Amera, Police Station Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Prateek Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ghasi Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village And Post Purgaon, Via Bilaigarh, Police Station Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Adv. For respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate 2 And WA No. 228 of 2025 Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Balodabazar Civil And Revenue District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh Departnment Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya Mahandi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Balodabazar Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Ramu Ram Sahu S/o Shri Belam Ram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mohtara Post Latuva Police Station Balodabazar Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Manmohan Singh Sahu S/o Shri Kriparam Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sakari Post Amera Police Station Balodabazar Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Prateek Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ghasi Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Purgaon Via Bilaigarh Police Station Balodabazar Civil And Revenue District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy.G.A. For Respondents No.3 to 5 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 09.10.2025 1. Since both the appeals arising out of same impugned order 3 passed in WPS No.2708/2014, they are being considered and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned Writ Court. 2. These writ appeals have been filed by the appellants, who are the respondents in writ petition, assailing the order dated 25/09/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 2708/2014, by which, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners by directing the respondent authorities to issue appointment letters to the writ petitioners within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order. 3. In the writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call for the records of the case of the petitioners from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable order/writ/direction directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher and issue them appointment letters in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem 4 fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition." 4. Facts, in brief, of the case as stated in the writ petition are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.06.2013 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3 for recruitment on the post of Lecturer/Teacher/Assistant Teacher, the petitioners having all the requisite qualification, applied for the post of Assistant Teacher along with all the documents pertaining to their educational qualification. After scrutiny, names of the petitioners were published in the list of Assistant Teacher. After obtaining objections and resolving the same, the petitioners' names were shown at S.No.1, 2 & 3 in the final list of Assistant Teacher vide Annexure P/2. However, on 29.01.2014 meeting of the scrutiny committee was held and selection list as well as waiting list was prepared in which names of the petitioners do not find place. In the said meeting, it was decided without assigning any reason that there shall be fresh advertisement regarding five posts of Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, on 25.2.2014 the petitioners moved a detailed representation before the Collector narrating the aforesaid facts and seeking direction for their appointment vide Annexure P/4. 5. Relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- 13. In the present case also, the petitioners were selected vide Annexure P/2 by the respondent 5 authorities for the post of Assistant Teacher and their names appear at Sl.No. 1, 2 & 3 in the final select list. This Court also vide order dated 5.8.2014 directed for some reservation and further on 24.4.2024 directed the the Director, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur to file affidavit whether selection of the petitioners was according to the Rules and if they are selected strictly on merits in accordance with the Rules why they were not issued appointment orders. After a considerable period of 10 years, the whole selection process in respect of recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher has been cancelled by order dated 19.7.2024 (Annexure A). It is an admitted position in this case that the selection process was completed in the year 2014 itself but no appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioners as per the final select list. In these circumstances, the reasons for delay in issuance of appointment letters to the petitioner who were duly selected, cannot be further arrested for the internal overlapping of facts and want of clarity of State, the petitioners cannot be made sufferers. 14. In light of above guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the orders passed by this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to issue appointment letters to the petitioners within a period of 45 days from 6 the date of receipt of copy of this order and the petitioners shall be allowed to join at the pay scale which is payable to them according to the Rules. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled for any payment from the date of selection as appointment letters were not issued on the principle of "no work, no pay". 15. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 6. In the writ petition, it was contended by learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the action of the respondent authorities in denying appointment to the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher despite their having all the requisite qualifications, is per se illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The action of the respondents is also violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as much as respondents have discriminated against the petitioners by not giving them appointment. It was contended that in the identical situation at Nagar Panchayat, Bhatgaon, appointment orders were issued in favour of the candidates who were successful and qualified vide Annexure P/5. Learned counsel further contended that the higher authorities i.e. Deputy Director, Urban Administration vide letter dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P/6) directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Balodabazar to follow the 7 directions given to Nagar Panchayat, Bhatgaon with regard to appointment of the petitioners but till date the petitioners have not been issued appointment letters for the post of Assistant Teacher. It was further contended that respondent No.3 issued an order on 28.02.2014 (Annexure P/7) whereby appointed some persons on the post of Assistant Teacher in various categories which clearly shows that they have overlooked/bypassed the earlier merit list wherein the petitioners stood at top three. 7. (A) In the writ petition, learned counsel for the C.M.O., Nagar Palika Parishad, Baloda Bazar, contended that the respondent No.3 sought instructions from the District Education Officer, Balodabazar-Bhatapara in respect of appointment of teachers vide letter dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure R-3/1) and in reply thereto, the District Education Officer vide letter dated 01.06.2013 (Annexure R-3/2) informed in respect of sanctioned and vacant post in Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara along with roster and sanctioned post. Thereafter, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 17.06.2013 advertised the post for appointment of Lecturer/Teacher/Assistant Teacher through direct recruitment and after scrutiny of the applications received, a tentative merit list was prepared and uploaded on the website and objections were invited. Meanwhile, respondent No.3 on 23.08.2013 wrote a letter to the District Education Officer, Balodabazar-Bhatapara informing him about convening a meeting of Scrutiny Committee on 24.8.2013 vide Annexure R-3/4. After resolving the objections on 26.09.2013 8 respondent No.3 published the seniority list of the candidates and called them for attestation of their documents on 30.09.2013 vide Annexure R-3/5. (B) Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that vide letter dated 27.11.2013 the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur directed respondent No.3 to again minutely examine the documents of the candidates and after the election code of conduct is over, the appointment will be made vide Annexure R-3/6. As the Screening Committee found some mistakes, after rectifying those mistakes, the amended list was published and sent for approval to the District Education Officer on 20.12.2013 vide Annexure R-3/7 who in turn sent the said list to the Screening Committee and in its meeting dated 29.01.2014 the Screening Committee directed to re-advertise the five specific subject-wise posts of Assistant Teacher vide Annexure R-3/8 as no specific subject was was mentioned in the advertisement for posts of Assistant Teacher and it was under the head "others" which would have created problems in future at the time of promotion. Accordingly, respondent No.3 initiated the further proceedings and subsequently, on the representation being made by the petitioners, the Joint Director vide order dated 26.02.2014 directed to examine the application forms and further stated that as per earlier direction issued to Nagar Palika, Bhatgaon, the same will be applied to Municipality, Balodabazar also. Thus, the respondent No.3 prepared the note sheets but later 9 on vide order dated 22.05.2014 the Joint Director issued directions to respondent No.3 and stayed the appointment of Assistant Teachers, hence no further proceedings could be conducted by respondent No.3 vide Annexure R-3/9. (C) Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that during pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 19.10.2022 sought information regarding vacancy of the post of Assistant Teacher and the present status of recruitment process and vide letter dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure R-3/10) the Joint Director, Department of Urban Administration and Development requested the Director, Urban Administration and Development to make correspondence at the directorate level with the Public Instructions Directorate for further proceedings as the post of Teacher, Nagriya Nikay has been merged with the Education Department and the vacant posts have been surrendered to the Education Department. In view of above, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief and the petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Department of School Education would be necessary party as the post of Teacher has been absorbed into the School Education Department, but the said Department had not been arrayed as party respondent before the learned Single Bench. The learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the fact that, vide order 10 dated 22/05/2014 the Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development directed to all the Urban Local Bodies that apart from the post of Lecturer the further recruitment on the post of Teacher and Assistant Teacher (Na. Ni.) has been kept in abeyance and therefore the recruitment on 4 posts of Assistant Teacher (Na. Ni.) of different subjects have not been completed. Learned counsel further submits that the post of Shikshak (Nagriya Nikay) has been absorbed in the Education Department and thereby, all the posts have been surrendered to the Education Department and vide order dated 24/04/2024. Liberty was granted to the writ petitioners to implead the Education Department as a necessary party respondent. But, the writ petitioners failed to implead the Secretary, Department of Education, still the impugned order has been passed directing the appellants herein to issue appointment orders to the writ petitioners, which is not just and proper. Hence, the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 is grossly erroneous and is liable to be set aside, accordingly the present writ appeals are liable to be allowed in the interest of justice. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 10.In view of the foregoing factual and legal background, and after careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, it is evident that the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate the 11 material aspects of the case. The record clearly demonstrates that the posts of Teacher and Assistant Teacher (Nagriya Nikay) were absorbed into the Department of School Education and all such posts were surrendered to the said Department, as per the communications of the State Government. Consequently, the Department of School Education is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. And, vide order dated 24/04/2024, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the writ petitioners to implead the Education Department as a necessary party respondent, but despite that, the Education Department has not been impleaded as a necessary party respondent and the learned Single Bench having proceeded to decide the matter without impleading the Secretary, Department of Education (who is a necessary party), who is now the competent authority in respect of such posts, has rendered the judgment unsustainable in law. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Bench, without taking into consideration these material developments, suffers from jurisdictional error and results in miscarriage of justice. 11.Accordingly, both the writ appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remitted back with liberty to the writ petitioners to implead the Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, as a necessary respondent. Upon such impleadment, the learned Single Judge shall reconsider and decide the writ petition afresh within a period 12 of eight weeks from the date of its first listing, in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep