1 2025:CGHC:15864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3026 of 2018  Ku. Tarun Pisda S/o Shri Deshu Prasad Pisda , Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Gahira Nawagaon Post Kherthabazar Block Doundilohara District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development , Mahanadi Bhawan, Manatralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director, Directorate Of Panchayat And Social Welfare New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Collector, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4. The Chief Executive Officer , Zila Panchayat Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3/ State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 04-04-2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) vide order dated 16.11.2017 and was posted at Govt. Higher Secondary School, 2 Kashikasa, Block Daundilohara, District Balod (C.G.). He further submits that required qualification for the post for Lecturer (Panchayat) in Biology subject was post-graduation in the Biology. He contends that petitioner was having requisite qualification, therefore, she submitted her application along with other relevant documents but due to mistake, she stated herself in application form B.Ed. Degree holder. He further contends that vide order dated 20.02.2018, her appointment has been cancelled on the ground that petitioner was not having B.Ed. Degree and incorrect information was submitted in the application form. He argues that the authority concerned ought to have conducted an inquiry and afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the order of removal from service. He prays that the order dated 20.02.2018 may be quashed in the interest of justice. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there was misrepresentation as petitioner mentioned herself as B.Ed. Degree holder whereas she was not having the said qualification, therefore, her appointment has been cancelled. He further submits that order impugned was passed by the competent authority according to one of the clauses of the appointment order, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order impugned. He prays that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3) Heard. 4) It is pertinent to mention here that (i) petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) vide appointment order dated 16.11.2017 issued by the competent authority i.e. CEO, Zila Panchayat- Balod ; (ii) no inquiry was conducted before terminating the services of petitioner and (iii) opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. 3 5) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the order dated 20.02.2018 whereby the services of petitioner have been terminated is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same is hereby quashed. Respondent authorities are directed to conduct fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6) Accordingly, instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya