1 2025:CGHC:4410-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 47 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director, Health Services Chhattisgarh, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... appellant versus 1 - Dunesh Kumari Kanwar, D/o Shri Manas Singh Kanwar, Aged About 25 Years Occupation - Rural Health Coordinator (Female)/anm (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) At Sub-Health Center Kuhimal, Block - Mainpur, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For appellant : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 2 24.01.2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the State against the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 passed in WPS No. 4560/2019 and order dated 20.11.2024 passed in Review Petition No. 258/2024 whereby the impugned order dated 29.12.2018 is set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner/ present respondent was disposed of and the Review Petition filed by the State was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in brief is that the Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (C.G. Vyapam) has conducted the written examination for appointment on the 396 posts of ANM, out of which 14 posts filled in the back of District- Gariyaband. The petitioner was also participated in written examination and found suitable for appointment and result was declared by Vyapam on 28/11/2016. The appointment letter of the petitioner was issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Dist- Gariyaband along with other selected candidates in 14 posts in the Dist- Gariyaband. Though, the total vacant posts was 14 whereas the appointment order was issued by the CMHO to 41 candidates and they all are joined at their respective places of posting in pursuance of their appointment orders. On 29.01.2018, the Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh issued a letter to CMHO to take action against the candidates who appointted apart from the sanctioned 14 posts and another letter was issued on 29/05/2018, when no action was taken by CMHO, Gariyaband, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 04/06/2018, thereafter, on very next date on 05.06.2018, the CMHO issued termination orders and terminating the services of the petitioner. The termination order of the petitioner and other petitioners were set aside/ quashed vide order dated 30.07.2018 3 passed in WPS No. 4539/2018 by coordinate Bench of this Court and the authorities were directed to afford the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Thereafter, the State authorities has passed the orders and rejected the representations of the petitioners on the ground that only 14 posts were sanctioned but total 41 candidates have been given appointments, show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and opportunity of hearing was also afforded to them and thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner was revoked/ terminated vide order dated 05.06.2018. The said order dated 05.06.2018 as well as the order dated 29/12/2018 passed by respondent no. 1 was under challenge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and other petitioners in the batch of petition. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties have allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner as well as other petitioners in batch of petition by holding that the respondent No. 1 as well as CMHO without following the due procedure of law, terminated the service of the petitioner and thereby set aside the termination order of the petitioner and as a consequence of setting aside the termination order of the petitioners, she has been treated in service from their respective date of appointment and held her entitled for consequential benefits of the said post. 4. Against the order dated 28.11.2023, the writ appellant /State has filed a Review Petition No. 258/2024 before the learned Single Judge but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2024 and thus, the writ appellant /State has filed the present Writ Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the writ appellant/ State would submit that the observation made by learned Single Judge in Para 6 of its order with 4 respect to the presumption of attening the status of regular employee is prima facie contrary to the terms and conditions of the appointment order. The appointment of the petitioner was disputed from its very inception as against 14 sanctioned posts, total 41 candidates have been given appointment and therefore, such observation cannot be made that the petitioner attends the status of the regular employee. He would further submit that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary as reflected in Clause 3 of the appointment order and the authority can terminate the petitioner after giving one month prior notice to the candidate, further the petitioner was appointed for the probation period of two years and she could only be regularized only after completion of two years of her service. If her services would be found satisfactory. He would further submit that the appointment order was issued against sanctioned posts of 14 and therefore, the petitioner do not have right to claim their appointment and in accordance of law when the entire appointment orders have been found faulty. The irregularity committed by the then CMHO, State Government has already taken action against him and he was suspended and initiated a departmental inquiry against him, therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and has submitted that after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has passed the order which is absolutely justified and needs no interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal as well as writ petition. 5 8. True it is sanctioned posts were 14 in Gariyaband whereas total 41 candidates was given appointment in the post of ANM, it is not the question here with respect to the faulty appointment but the question involved in the present case is their termination. Once a employee has been appointed on the government post after following the required process and pursuant to that the appointment orders were issued by the authority, they joined the services and drawing salaries as a regular employees, their GPF accounts were opened by the department and thus, the petitioner has attains the status of regular employee and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 is applicable to the Government Servant appointed by the State Government. It is a well settled principle of law that if a candidate has been appointed according to the existing Rules, he/ she cannot be removed from his/her posts without following the due process of law. In the CCA Rules, 1966, the procedure has been prescribed for removal of government servant under Rule 14 and 16 of the said CCA Rules, 1966. From perusal of the document annexure P/1 which is the order dated 29/08/2018 passed by respondent No. 1 filed in the writ petition, it is quite clear that except for the issuance of show cause notice, the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 and 16 of the CCA Rules, 1966 have not been followed. The learned Single Judge considering the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in writ appeal No. 448 of 2017, Krishna Kumar Dahariya Vs. State of C.G. & Ors. and also considering the documents annexed with the writ petition, held that the termination of the petitioner is bad in law as the same has been passed in violation of the provisions contending Rule 14 and 16 6 of CCA Rules, 1966. By holding the same, the termination order of the petitioner has been set aside and it is obvious for once the termination order of an employee is set aside, he/ she would be deem to be in service from the date of their appointment and they are entitled for consequential benefits which has rightly been done by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has also reserved the right of respondent/ State to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. The Review Petition filed by the writ appellant/ State has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2024. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner and dismissing the Review Petition filed by the State. 9. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while setting aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2018 and disposing of the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. 10. From the foregoing reasons, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and the present writ appeal liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30 10:37:59 +0530