1 2025:CGHC:18094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1775 of 2017 1 - Rewati Soni D/o Shri Krishndutt Soni, Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Opp. Police Station Manendragarh, Post Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer, Public Health Department, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Engineer, Public Health Department, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Kuldeep Kumar Soni Sub Engineer, Sub Division, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr.Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional A.G. For respondent No.4 : None appears though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 22-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “I. direct the respondent no.1 to 3 not to take any action of removing the petitioner from service to the post of Lab Assistant. REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2 II. direct the respondent authoriyt to take appropriate departmental action against the respondent no. 4. III. direct the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to petitioner case IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2) Mr. Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a daily rated employee on 01.12.2013 to the post of Lab Assistant under respondents No.1 to 3. He would further submit that the petitioner lodged an FIR against respondent No.4 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 294 & 506 of the IPC on 16.02.2017. He would also submit that the petitioner also made complaints against respondent No.4 before various authorities and due to ulterior motives, the petitioner was discontinued from services and no specific order with regard to removal was passed by respondent No. 3. He would contend that the action of respondent No.3 was illegal, arbitrary and in breach of the well-settled principles of services jurisprudence. He would pray to allow this petition and direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in the service. He would further contend that the experience certificate was issued by the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (PHE), Manendragarh, District Korea on 16.12.2016 in favor of the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the petitioner worked under the respondents on the post of Lab Assistant 3 from 01.12.2013. He would also contend that the experience certificate clearly establishes that the petitioner worked under the respondents against the sanctioned and vacant post of Lab Assistant and she was removed without affording the opportunity of hearing and without holding any enquiry. Mr. Kotecha would submit that the order dated 19.01.2017, whereby services of the petitioner were discontinued is antedated. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Marhas, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kotecha. He would submit that the petitioner was a daily rated employee. He would further submit that the petitioner failed to place on record the order of appointment to substantiate that she was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post. Mr. Marhas would also submit that the order of discontinuation of service dated 19.01.2017 was placed on record along with return filed on 08.06.2017 but the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. He would contend that the engagement of the petitioner was on a need basis and her services were discontinued by the competent authority when there was no need of her services. He would also contend that order dated 19.01.2017 is not stigmatic and the petitioner was not a regular employee therefore there was no need to conduct any enquiry or afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) The claim of the petitioner is based on the experience certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department 4 (PHE), Manendragarh, District Korea on 16.12.2016 wherein it is stated that the petitioner worked under the respondents on the post of Lab Assistant from 01.12.2013. 6) A perusal of pleadings made in the writ petition would show that the petitioner has not placed on record the order of appointment to substantiate that she was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post. The documents filed in return would show that the petitioner was appointed on collector rate. The order (Annexure R/1), which is the order of discontinuation of services of the petitioner, would show that her employment was on a need basis. 7) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 19.01.2017 whereby her services were discontinued though the return was filed by the State on 08.06.2017 and the very order was placed as Annexure R/1 along with the return. 8) With regard to malafide, the petitioner could not produce material evidence in the present petition and respondent No.4 was not the competent authority to take any action against the petitioner. 9) The experience certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (PHE), Manendragarh, District Korea would reveal that the petitioner was employed on the post of Lab Assistant under the respondents from 01.12.2013 but it does not establish that the petitioner was a regular employee or she was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post or any right accrued in her favour. 10) Taking into consideration the fact that there is no order of appointment; the petitioner failed to challenge the order of discontinuation of service 5 dated 19.01.2017 and the experience certificate does not serve the purpose, I do not find any good ground to allow this petition. 11)Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). dSd/-Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha