1 2025:CGHC:7809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2870 of 2024 1 - Smt. Ragini Rathore W/o Shri Komal Rathore Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Chitar Para, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2 - The District Education Officer District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3 - The Block Education Officer Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4 - The Head Master Government Girls Primary School, Janjgir (Bhimapara), District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri B.S. Rajput, Advocate For State/Respondents : Shri Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a sweeper and she was appointed in the Government Girls Primary School, Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.19 11:20:54 +0530 2 Bhimapara, however, she has worked in the said school as a part time sweeper for about 9 years, however, without there being any reason, vide resolution dated 17.1.2023, she has been removed from the post of sweeper. Learned counsel further submits that the Collector, Janjgir - Champa has issued a memo dated 21.7.2014 in which it has been stated that the sweepers should not be removed who are in the said post. If any such situation arises then the sweepers can only be removed from the prior approval of the concerned District Education Officer. In the present case, it has been argued that no recommendation has been made by the District Education Officer without there being any prior permission from the District Education Officer the petitioner has been removed from the post of sweeper. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that due inquiry has been conducted, opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner has been removed from the post of sweeper. However, learned State Counsel failed to submit and state whether recommendation of District Education Officer has been obtained while removing the petitioner from the said post. Learned counsel further submits that in place of the petitioner, vide order dated 22.2.2023 one Roshni Bichhiya (Annexure R2) has been appointed in place of the petitioner. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that without prior permission from the District Education Officer and his recommendation, the impugned order has been passed for removal of the petitioner which is not in accordance with law, further, the respondents have also not forwarded a copy of appointment of Roshni Bichhiya to the concerned Collector as well as to the District Education Officer, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and it is 3 accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in respect of her reinstatement. 4. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh