1 / 6 2025:CGHC:12698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2012 of 2022 1 Jugal Prasad Sande S/o Late Dhanau Ran Sande Aged About 52 Years Lab Technician, New Govt. Engineering College, Sejbahar, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Technical Education Department, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002 2 Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002 3 Principal, New Govt. Engineering College, Sejbahar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Tanmay Thomas, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Shri Ajit Singh, G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 17/03/2025 1. By the present writ petition, petitioner, who is presently working as a Skilled Attendant, is questioning the impugned order of JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.03.20 11:59:46 +0530 2 / 6 cancellation of promotion dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-11) issued by respondent No. 3 i.e. Principal, New Govt. Engineering College. 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner was initially appointed as Skilled Workman on 20.08.1992, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Lab Attendant on 13.03.1997 and thereafter to the post of Skilled Attendant on 30.08.2005. Further, respondent No. 3 issued order dated 31.12.2015, promoting the petitioner to the post of Laboratory Technician from Skilled Attendant in pursuance to the recommendation of DPC constituted by respondents No. 2 & 3 in accordance with rules. He further submits that the petitioner was having requisite qualification of higher secondary examination, Taar Mistry degree in “Domestic and Industrial Electrical Installation” from MP Licensee Board (Electric) Of M.P. Government and the said qualification of Taar Mistry is equivalent to ITI degree which has been clarified by Directorate of Technical Education vide its letter dated 07.01.2003 on basis of letter dated 20.09.1990 of the license board i.e. P-13. He further by referring C.G. Technical Education Class-III (Non Clerical Cadre) Service Recruitment Rule, 2005 (for short Rules, 2005) submits that the requisite qualification for the post of Lab Technician has been provided in the Schedule 3 of the Recruitment Rule, 2005. The note provided in the said schedule reads as under:- " – टीप तकनीक सहायक एवं ्ቚयगशाला तकनीशिशायनी क पोረ पर सቝኋ क आवंश्यकतनीसर तकनीक विवंभाग क शिलाए तकनीक यग्यत ( पቔኘप़ቢ य 3 / 6 आई.टी.आई. ्ቚमाण पቔኘ) धार कएवं अटीकनीक विवंभाग य प्቏्ቅमा जै+स भा,वितक एवं रसयनी तथा अन्य ्ቚयगशाला क शिलाए विवंሺኋनी यग्यतधार क विनीयक्त विकय जै सक ग " (b) He further submits that in the said schedule a note has been appended stating that in the posts of Technical Assistants and Laboratory Technicians, candidates with technical qualifications Diploma or ITI certificate shall be recruited for technical departments and Candidates with Science qualifications shall be recruited for non-technical departments e.g. Physics and Chemistry and other Laboratories. He further submits that at the time of DPC, the petitioner was having qualification of Taar Mistry which is equivalent to the ITI degree and during DPC the said fact was considered and recommendation for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Lab Technician was given. He further submits that though the petitioner was having requisite qualification and promotion was on the basis of recommendation of DPC, however, on the basis of some complaint, respondent No. 2 constituted an enquiry committee to enquire upon the promotion of the petitioner. (c) Thereafter, as per the direction of the respondent authorities the petitioner appeared before the enquiry committee; submitted his case; and denied the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner also submitted the relevant documents before the authorities in support of his contention. He further submits that on completion of the inquiry, the enquiry committee submitted its report on 10.01.2020 wherein, the enquiry committee 4 / 6 recommended the case of the petitioner in the following terms : “ अत1 उक्त कमा3चार क ्ቚयगशाला तकनीशिशायनी स तकनीक सहायक क रिरक्त पोረ पर पोረ्ቐवित हात ्ቚस्तवं अध्य्ቌ समिमावित क समा्ቌ अनीशास हात ्ቚस्तत हा+। (d) According to the learned counsel, despite the aforesaid fact, the respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 25.02.2022 directed respondent No. 3 to take appropriate steps for cancellation of promotion of the petitioner and for recovery. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 by order dated 07.03.2022 cancelled the promotion order of the petitioner dated 31.12.2015 and reverted the petitioner back to the post of Skilled Attendant and ordered for recovery of the financial benefits. (e) He further submits that before cancellation of the promotion order pursuant to the direction of the respondent No.2, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and the respondents while cancelling the promotion order has not at all appreciated the facts of the case in its true perspective before recommending cancellation of the promotion. Hence, the order of cancellation of promotion is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to principles of natural justice. 3. Learned State counsel submits that in the enquiry proceedings, the respondents have provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to submit his case as also necessary documents in support of his requisite qualification and hence he cannot say that opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the petitioner. In 5 / 6 fact, respondents No. 2 after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case has taken a decision of cancellation of promotion of the petitioner. He would further submit that infact the petitioner failed to submit the requisite documents before the enquiry committee. He further submits that the petitioner is also not having qualification which is appended in the Rules, 2005, hence the order of cancellation of promotion is just and proper. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and impugned order of cancellation of promotion dated 31.12.2015, as well as, the report submitted by the enquiry committee and the communication dated 25.02.2022, by which the respondent No. 2 has directed respondent No. 3 to cancel promotion of petitioner. 5. It is not in dispute that before inquiring into the complaint the committee has sought for explanation from the petitioner and the enquiry committee has prepared the enquiry report wherein it was recommended that “ अत1 उक्त कमा3चार क ्ቚयगशाला तकनीशिशायनी स तकनीक सहायक क रिरक्त पोረ पर पोረ्ቐवित हात ्ቚस्तवं अध्य्ቌ समिमावित क समा्ቌ अनीशास हात ्ቚस्तत हा+। Despite the said fact the respondent No. 2 has directed respondent No. 3 to cancel the promotion order of the petitioner, however, before cancellation of the promotion order of the petitioner no explanation has been sought from the petitioner and the petitioner had not got any opportunity of hearing to explain about the requisite qualification which has been annexed by the petitioner i.e. Taar Mistry which is equivalent to the ITI degree. 6 / 6 6. Be that as it may, no order visiting with civil (evil) consequences be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. 7. It is well settled principle of law that if any order visits with civil consequences, the same is vitiated, if passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee(s). (See: Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 690) 8. Perusal of Rule, 2005 wherein the note has been annexed that authorized DPC to consider the equivalent requisite qualification and once the petitioner is having said requisite qualification which has been certified by the State government, the respondent authorities are duty bound to consider the same in accordance with law. Hence, the order of cancellation of promotion without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain about his case, dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-11) is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to principles of natural justice and is quashed. However, the State is at liberty to take appropriate steps for scrutine of requisite qualification of the petitioner, as per rules, by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so desired. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Gowri/Jyoti