1 2025:CGHC:44929 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2272 of 2021 * - Smt. Malika Bamane W/o Shri D. Bamane Aged About 35 Years Working As Assistant Grade-III At Community Health Center, Bhanpuri, District-Baster At Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Baster District-Baster At Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Baster, District-Baster At Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Medical Officer Block-Baster, District-Baster At Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quash order impugned dated 30.03.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3 (so far as concerned to the petitioner). 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit. 2. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Class-IV Employee (Peon) under respondent No. 3 on 01.10.2010. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.04 19:33:43 +0530 2 Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-III by the competent authority on 13.11.2020. However, without affording any opportunity of hearing, the promotion order was canceled by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30.03.2021. He would contend that the concerned authority ought to have provided sufficient opportunity of hearing before canceling the the promotion order, as it has civil consequences. 3. Mr. Somkant Verma, would further submit that the issue involved in the present petition has already been considered and decided on 14.08.2025 in WPS No. 2307 of 2021 parties being Mohan Singh Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others. 4. Mr. Vedant Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would endorse the submission made by Mr. Somkant Verma. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that after the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III, certain writ petitions, including a Public Interest Litigation, were filed before this Court challenging such promotion. Pursuant to the orders passed in those petitions, a committee was constituted to enquire into the matter regarding promotion granted to the petitioner and other similarly situated employees. The allegations made in the complaint were found to be substantiated, and subsequently, the promotion order of the petitioner was canceled by respondent No.3 vide the impugned order. 7. Though an enquiry committee was constituted pursuant to directions issued by High Court and irregularities were found in the promotion 3 process by the said committee, but at the same time, it is equally true that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the issuance of the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. Further, the interim order dated 17.05.2021 is operating in favour of the petitioner, and the petitioner is still discharging the functions of Assistant Grade- III. This indicates that the cancellation order has been kept in abeyance pending the outcome of this petition. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the cancellation of the promotion order has serious civil consequences affecting the petitioner's service career, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 suffers from the vice of violation of the natural justice principles; thus, the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 10. Respondent No.3 would be at liberty to pass a fresh order after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti