1 2025:CGHC:33695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1029 of 2020  Vijendra Sahu S/o Dev Prasad Sahu Aged About 39 Years Caste Teli, R/o Narwa, Chirmiri Colliery, Gelhapani, Post Gelhapani (Bazardafai), District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Manora, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Kaushilya Gupta D/o Deepanchand Gupta R/o Village Mahadevdand, Post Kurong, Tahsil Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer & 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned appointment order dated 19.09.2008 of the respondent no. 4 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.18 18:52:29 +0530 2 direct the respondent no. 2 to take action on the complaint made by Human Right Association dated 09.05.2019. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the appointment of respondent no. 4. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also, kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 4, who is the wife of the petitioner, was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade III in Janpad Panchayat, Manora, vide order dated 19.09.2008 by submitting incomplete and false information. He would further submit that respondent No. 4 did not have the certificate of Stenography-Typing. He would contend that respondent No. 4 submitted forged experience certificates to get employment. He would also submit that the petitioner made a complaint before various authorities, but no action has been taken. He would pray to cancel the appointment order of respondent no. 4. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 4. He would further submit that the petitioner has already intimated the department with regard to fraud committed by respondent No. 4, and it is for the employer to examine the complaints. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is the husband of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade III in the office of Janpad Panchayat, Manora, vide order dated 19.09.2008. Complaints were made by the petitioner to the various authorities in the year 2008 and in the year 2019. It appears that the relation between the petitioner and 3 respondent No. 4 was not cordial, and therefore, the petitioner made complaints against her. Respondent No. 4 submitted her application form, and after due scrutiny, she was offered appointment. Respondent No. 4 was appointed by the respondent authorities after due satisfaction. The petitioner has no locus to challenge the appointment order of respondent No. 4. He made complaints, and thereafter, his job is over, and it is for the employer to examine or scrutinize the documents submitted by respondent No. 4; thus, no case is made out for interference. 5. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant