1 2025:CGHC:1526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3212 of 2018 Sanjay Kumar Singh Rathore S/o Late Shri Jagatpal Singh Rathore, Aged About 48 Years R/o Danteshwari Ward No. 20, Besides Pump House, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 494001., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1) State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Fisheries, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2) Director Fisheries, Indrawti Bhawan, 4th Floor (B- Block), Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3) Dy. Director Fisheries, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 09/01/2025 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 issue a writ/ writs, direction/ directions, order/ orders quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2017 r/w 2 examination report dated 25.11.2017 (Annex.P/1) and removal order dated 03.01.1998 (Annexure P/5), passed by the respective respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/ writs, direction/ directions, order/ orders and reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Fisheries. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to dispose of the case as soon as possible looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is removed from job, since 1997. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 2) Facts of the present case are that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Peon under the Fish Farmers’ Development Agency, Jagdalpur which was sponsored by the State Government and he worked there from 01.10.1990 till 01.03.1996. The Dy. Director Fisheries, Bastar Division i.e. respondent No. 3 invited applications from departmental candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Fisheries Department in the year 1997. There was only one post for appointment from direct recruitment as per the letter issued by the General Administration Department of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh dated 26.12.1994 whereby 20% of employees can be recruited to the post of Lower Division Clerk from promotion. The case of the petitioner was considered by the recruitment Committee and as the petitioner had the requisite qualifications i.e. knowledge of Hindi and English typing, his name was considered for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. A specific order of appointment was issued on 29.02.1996 and the petitioner was appointed on the pay-scale of Rs. 950- 1,530/-. The petitioner joined services but surprisingly, he was served with a notice dated 01.12.1997 wherein it was stated that his 3 promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk against 20% reservation roster was erroneous and thus one-month’s advance notice was served upon him. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 03.01.1998. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director Fisheries i.e. respondent No. 2 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2017 and it was communicated to him on 27.11.2017. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk through the direct recruitment process. He further submits that the petitioner worked on the said post from 01.03.1996 till 03.01.1998 i.e. for a total of 1 year 9 months. Respondent No. 3 issued a letter to the petitioner on 01.12.1997 stating that he was wrongly promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk contrary to the 20% reservation roster. He contends that an order was issued on 03.01.1998 with regard to the termination of services of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.1997. He further contends that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk as he had previously worked on the post of Peon in the Agency and submitted his resignation after his appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. He argues that as the petitioner was a regular employee of the Fisheries Department, the respondent authorities ought to have conducted an inquiry before proceeding to terminate the services of the petitioner according to provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. He prays to quash the order of termination and the order passed by the appellate authority. 4 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to applications invited for direct recruitment by respondent No. 3. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed contrary to the 20% reservation roster. He contends that vacant posts for direct recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk were not available but due to a mistake, the petitioner was appointed, therefore, a decision was taken by respondent No. 3 to terminate the services of the petitioner and one month’s notice was served upon him. He further contends that the officer who issued the order of appointment in favor of the petitioner was punished with the withholding of two increments without cumulative effect which is evident from Annexure R/3. He argues that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order and the same was also dismissed. He further argues that the petitioner was not a departmental employee, therefore, there was no occasion for him to submit an application for direct recruitment as he was an employee of the agency and this fact is not in dispute. He prays that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) Undisputedly, the petitioner was an employee of the agency and he worked on the post of Peon from 01.10.1990 till 01.03.1996. Applications were invited by respondent No. 3 for direct recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. As per the note-sheet dated 28.02.1996 (Annexure R/1), there were a total of 11 sanctioned posts and one post was lying vacant. According to the circular issued by the 5 erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh dated 26.12.1994 (Annexure R/2), those posts were to be filled by promotion following 20% reservation roster. One post was lying vacant and according to the note-sheet, the petitioner was found suitable as he was eligible, qualified and had the knowledge of English and Hindi typing. Pursuant to the decision taken by the authority concerned, the appointment order was issued in favor of the petitioner to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 29.02.1996. The petitioner joined service and a show-cause notice was issued to him on 01.12.1997 by respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner was notified that he was wrongly promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk contrary to the 20% reservation roster and one-month’s advance notice was served upon the petitioner. Vide order 03.01.1998, the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 31.12.1997. The order dated 01.12.1997 (Annexure P/4) would show that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lower Division Clerk by promotion was contrary to the 20% reservation roster. A perusal of the appointment order shows that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk and he was appointed through direct recruitment, therefore, the order dated 01.12.1997 appears to be erroneous. 7) Though the officer who issued the order of appointment in favor of the petitioner has been punished by the State Government but it would not compensate the cause of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post in accordance with the constitutional mandate and if the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to any rule or provision or roster, the respondent authorities 6 ought to have followed the due process of law before proceeding to terminate his services. The petitioner was a member of civil services, therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have conducted an inquiry according to the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The petitioner also preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority on the basis of a report submitted by the Committee. The committee has assigned the reason that the petitioner was not an employee of the Fisheries Department, therefore, he was not competent to submit an application for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. It is also stated that the benefit of the 20% reservation roster was only available to the regular employees of the Fisheries Department and as the petitioner was an employee of the Agency, therefore, he was not entitled to such benefit. 8) Be that as it may, the respondent authorities terminated the services of the petitioner on the premise that he was appointed on promotion which appears to be misconceived. Further, the respondent authorities have not followed the provisions entailed in Rule 14 of The Rules, 1966 while proceeding to terminate the services of a regular employee. 9) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the pleadings made herein above, in the opinion of this Court, orders passed by respondent No. 3 dated 01.12.1997 and 03.01.1998 and the order passed by appellate authority dated 31.11.2017 are hereby quashed and the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. 10) With regard to arrears of salary, the petitioner has not pleaded in the present petition that he was not employed gainfully anywhere, 7 therefore, the petitioner is directed to make a representation claiming therein arrears of salary and the respondent authorities would be at liberty to examine whether the petitioner was employed gainfully anywhere or not. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the respondent authority within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya