1 2025:CGHC:31825-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 454 of 2025 C.L. Patel S/o Hirday Narayan Patel, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bendarkona, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh (Mentioned As C.L. Patel, Posted As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School Kanki, Block Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh In The Order), Presently Working As In Charge Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Kanki, Block Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - B.N. Yadaw S/o Late Mayaram Yadaw Aged About 57 Years Posted As Lecturer Government Higher Secondary School Kanki Block Kartala District- Korba (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 1 0 . 07 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State / respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. By the present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, has challenged the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 1180 of 2025 (B.N. Yadaw Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, who was working as In- charge Principal and posted in Govt. Higher Secondary School Kanki, Block – Kartala, District – Korba filed a writ petition being WPS No. 1180 of 2025 before this Court questioning the order dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondent No.3 therein/ District Education Officer, Korba has given charge of In- charge Principal to the respondent No.4 therein /appellant herein, who is junior to the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein. The 3 said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3 therein / District Education Officer, Korba has been quashed. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant has filed the instant appeal. 4. It has been vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 has been passed by the learned Single Judge without granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of audi alteram partem. He further argued that the learned Single Judge proceeded to quash the order dated 18.07.2024 solely on the ground of seniority, relying upon Circulars dated 04.08.2011 and 16.05.2012. The applicability of such circulars ought to have been adjudicated upon after hearing the Appellant, who would have brought relevant facts and clarifications on record to establish the legality of his appointment. He also argued that though the Appellant attempted to seek recall of the order through Review Petition No. 126/2025, but the same was summarily dismissed on 10.06.2025, without examining the fact that the Appellant was deprived of a fair hearing in the original writ petition. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order without being apprised of the material fact that the petitioner/respondent No. 1 was found guilty in a departmental investigation initiated on the basis of multiple complaints regarding his misconduct and dereliction of duty. Vide letter dated 02.07.2024, the District Education Officer, Korba had 4 appointed an Investigating Officer to inquire into the allegations, and upon finding the petitioner guilty, he was removed from the post of Principal. Subsequently, the appellant was assigned the charge of the post. However, this significant development was not brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court, which resulted in the impugned order being passed solely on the consideration of seniority, thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice. He also submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law that no order affecting civil rights or professional standing of an individual can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order suffers from procedural impropriety and as such, deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant is junior to the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein. 8. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record it transpires that though the learned Single Judge while 5 allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein has not heard the appellant, as his counsel has not appeared and has passed the impugned order on the basis of circulars dated 04.08.2011 and 16.05.2012 (Annexure P/4 & P/5 respectively) issued by the State Government, whereby handing over of the charge by replacing a senior to a junior employee is not permissible, however, liberty is reserved for the respondents/ State to pass appropriate order at an appropriate stage, if so advised. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra