1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 382 of 2012  Duj Bai Aged about 28 years W/o – Shri Shiv Kumar Sahu R/o Nirjam, Mungeli District – Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Collector, Mungeli (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mungeli (C.G.) 6. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) 7. Ku. Sapna Thakur D/o Shri Chnadrashekhar Singh Aged about 27 years, R/o – Gram & Post – Dharampura, Tehsil & District – Mungeli (C.G.) 8. Ku. Pinki Diwedi D/o Shri Ravishankar Diwedi Aged about 27 years R/o – Gram & Post – Jarhagaon, Tehsil & District – Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 24/09/2025 2 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 To kindly quash the impugned order dated 31/12/2011 issued by the respondent No.6, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure P/1. 10.2 To kindly direct the respondent No.6 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli to follow the directions issued by the respondent No.2, Collector Bilaspur, inrespectof granting appointment to the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi-III. 10.3 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2) Facts of the present case that initially, petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade–III by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli vide order dated 04.06.2005 and she was posted at Primary School Chamari (Tingipur), Mungeli. The Collector, Bilaspur found certain irregularities in the selection process and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 10.08.2005 with respect to her appointment. The petitioner appeared before the authority concerned and submitted her reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice on 22.08.2005. Thereafter, Collector, Bilaspur vide order dated 12.01.2006, found petitioner not eligible for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade–III and canceled her appointment and further direction was issued to the respondent no. 6 to place the petitioner in Wait List and appoint meritorious and suitable candidates from wait list. 3) The petitioner challenged the said order by filing writ petition 3 [WP/396/2006] and interim order was passed in favor of petitioner on 25.01.2006. By virtue of the interim order, petitioner continued on the said post and eventually, writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2009 after recording the statement made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that “petition has become infructuous as according to him, the petitioner has been appointed as Shikha Karmi after the regular examination”. Thereafter, petitioner preferred application [MCC/1436/2010] for restoration of the writ petition which was withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy available under law vide order dated 01.11.2011. As the interim protection granted in favor of petitioner came to an end after dismissal of writ petition, CEO Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli issued an order on 28/31.12.2011 whereby appointment of petitioner to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade–III was canceled. Subsequently, CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli appointed respondents No. 7 and 8 on vacant posts from the Wait List and name of petitioner was not considered. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 28/31.12.2011 and also sought a direction to CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli to comply with the direction issued by Collector, Bilaspur. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade–III and Collector, Bilaspur vide order dated 12.01.2006, canceled her appointment and directed CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli to place her in the Wait List and appoint suitable candidate according 4 to merit. He further submits that CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli has offered appointment to the private respondents, whereas petitioner is meritorious to those candidates. He would also submit that by virtue of interim order passed by this Court in the instant petition, petitioner is still working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade–III. He contends that earlier, writ petition was dismissed being rendered infructuous and liberty was granted in favor of petitioner to avail the remedy available under law, therefore there was no occasion for the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli to issue order dated 28/31.12.2011. He further contends that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner and procedure contemplated under service rules was not followed, therefore order impugned is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 5) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. He submits that the earlier writ petition wherein the order issued by Collector, Bilaspur dated 12.01.2006 was challenged, was dismissed being rendered infructuous. He further submits that application filed for restoration of writ petition was also dismissed with liberty to avail remedy available under law, therefore this petition is not maintainable. He contends that order dated 28/31.12.2011 has been passed by CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli pursuant to order passed by Collector, Bilaspur and it is not a separate and distinct order. He further contends that show-cause notice was issued and due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by Collector, Bilaspur before passing order dated 5 12.01.2006. He argues that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7) Admittedly, petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade–III vide order dated 04.06.2005. The Collector, Bilaspur received certain complaints regarding irregularities committed during selection process and on the basis of enquiry report, the appointment order issued in favor of petitioner was canceled vide order dated 12.01.2006 and CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli was directed to place the petitioner in Wait List and offer appointment to the suitable and meritorious candidates. Subsequently, CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli appointed respondents No. 7 and 8 on vacant posts. 8) Initially, writ petition was filed by petitioner challenging the order passed by the Collector, Bilaspur dated 12.01.2006 and interim order was granted in her favor but later on, petition was dismissed being rendered infructuous on the instance of petitioner herself and liberty was granted in favor of petitioner to avail remedy available under law. After dismissal of writ petition, application for restoration of writ petition was moved and again, it was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedy available under law. Thereafter, CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli issued order dated 28/31.12.2011 whereby appointment of petitioner has been canceled. 9) In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 28/31.12.2011 is not a 6 fresh order, rather it has been issued by respondent No. 6 pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, Bilaspur dated 12.01.2006. In the earlier round of litigation, writ petition filed by petitioner was dismissed being rendered infructuous and application for restoration of writ petition was also dismissed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to avail the remedy available under law. Thus, petitioner ought to have challenged the order passed by Collector, Bilaspur before appropriate forum. Further, the writ petition was dismissed being rendered infructuous recording the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that : “petition has become infructuous as according to him, the petitioner has been appointed as Shikha Karmi after the regular examination”. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to file this petition assailing the same order and she ought to have challenged the said orders passed by Collector, Bilaspur and CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli before appropriate forum. It was stated in WP No. 396/2006 that petitioner has been appointed as Shiksha Karmi after regular appointment but said order has not been placed on record and said order has not been canceled by the respondent authorities and earlier writ petition was dismissed with liberty to avail remedy available under the law, therefore instant writ petition is not maintainable and petitioner should avail remedy available under the law as there is no fresh cause of action in her favor. 10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion 7 of this Court, this petition is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under law, if so advised. 11) Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd.- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.26 14:54:23 +0530