1 2025:CGHC:46658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5639 of 2023 Dhansay Patel Son of Murit Ram Patel, Aged About 30 Years Resident of Village And Post - Giraudpuri, Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare, Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The District Ayurved Health Officer, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ayurved Health Officer Government Ayurved Hospital, Giraudpuri, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jageshwar Prasad Sonwani, S/o. Nepal Singh Sonwani, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Village - Giraudpuri, Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nepal Singh Sonwani, S/o. Manuram, Aged About 67 Years R/o. Village - Giraudpuri, Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Gram Panchayat, Giraudpuri, Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Secretary, ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 11.09.2025 1 The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.15 18:22:27 +0530 2 thereby setting aside/quashing the impugned orders dated 14.03.2023, 03.02.2023 & 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/1. P/2 AP/3) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Part-Time Sweeper. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2 Brief facts of the case, are that the Gram Panchayat, Giraudpuri, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, invited applications for the post of Part-Time Sweeper (‘PTS’). The petitioner, along with others, applied for the said post. After scrutiny of applications, the Gram Panchayat, Giraudpuri, vide letter dated 08.06.2022, sent a proposal to Respondent No. 2 for appointment. On the basis of this proposal, Respondent No. 2 issued the appointment order dated 14.11.2022 in favor of the petitioner, who joined duty on 18.11.2022 and discharged his responsibilities diligently and satisfactorily. However, Respondent No. 2, without authority, issued guidelines dated 25.01.2022 allowing elderly PTS employees to recommend a relative for appointment in their place. On this basis, the father of Respondent No. 5 filed an application for appointment of Respondent No. 4. Since no such procedure existed under law, the application was not considered. Respondents No. 4 and 5 thereafter filed Writ Petition (S) No. 8608/2022, which was disposed of on 16.01.2023 directing 3 Respondent No. 2 to decide their claim. Despite this, Respondent No. 2, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without assigning reasons, cancelled the petitioner’s appointment vide order dated 03.02.2023 and appointed Respondent No. 4 in his place, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed a representation challenging the said order, which remained undecided. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) No. 1359/2023, and the Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 16.02.2023, directed Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the pending representation. Pursuant to this, Respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioner’s representation vide order dated 14.03.2023, upholding the appointment of Respondent No. 4. The petitioner has therefore filed the present petition challenging the said order. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Sweeper in the Government Ayurved Hospital, Giraudpuri, District Balodabazar on 14.11.2022, purely on temporary basis for a period of three months. It is submitted that the petitioner had been discharging his duties with sincerity and to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. However, without issuance of any notice or assigning any reason whatsoever, his services were abruptly discontinued despite the fact that sufficient work continued to exist. It is further contended that immediately thereafter, respondent No.4 was appointed in place of the petitioner as Part-Time Sweeper, which clearly 4 indicates that the removal of the petitioner was not on account of non-availability of work but only with a view to accommodate respondent No.4. Learned counsel submits that such action on the part of the authorities is wholly arbitrary, unfair, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, therefore, confines his relief to a limited prayer that the respondents may be directed to duly consider his case for resumption of service and to allow him to continue in accordance with law. 4 Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that respondent No.4 has already been appointed by order dated 03.02.2023 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be reinstated in place of respondent No.4. However, he is unable to demonstrate any cogent reason or produce any material record to justify as to why the petitioner’s services were discontinued abruptly or why respondent No.4 was appointed in his place. 5 I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 6 The facts on record indicate that while the petitioner was appointed for a fixed period, the discontinuation of his service was not based on any recorded reason. More importantly, no notice was issued to him nor any opportunity of hearing was granted before his removal, which offends the settled principle of natural justice. Furthermore, the fact that respondent No.4 has been 5 appointed immediately thereafter in the very same capacity raises serious doubt about the fairness and transparency of the action of the authorities. 7 In these circumstances, while this Court is not inclined to direct the reinstatement of the petitioner straightaway, the interest of justice would be served if the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against any available post of Part-Time Sweeper, in accordance with law and on the basis of his earlier engagement. It is accordingly directed that the respondent authorities shall consider the petitioner’s case and take an appropriate decision. If any post of Part-Time Sweeper is available, the petitioner shall also be accommodated. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 8 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh