1 2025:CGHC:7825 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6125 of 2018 1 - Gyaneshwar Prasad Rathore S/o Bhawanilal Rathore Aged About 31 Years R/o- Village And Post- Ghaghara, Tahsil Kharisya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanandi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Officer And Police Station Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Urban Administration And Development Department Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Nagar Panchayat Sitapur Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sitapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 13.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.5 to reinstate the petitioner and allow joining in accordance with the resolution and recommendation of President-in Council. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to allow the petitioner for serving as Lecturer as per the resolution dated 13.10.2017. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner as also the representation submitted by him and take appropriate decision as was allowed in other cases of similarly situated employees. 10.5 Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon'ble the Court deems fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner completed his Post-Graduation and B.Ed. from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh in the year 2012. Respondent No.5 invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Lecturer and Assistant Teacher (Nagariya Nikay) according to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagariya Nikay) Samvarg (Bharti Tatha Seva Ki Sharte) Niyam, 2013. He would further submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment and was appointed vide order dated 02.01.2014. He would contend that an affidavit was also sworn by the petitioner 3 which states that he acquired the required qualification from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and a decision in the pending case with regard to the validity of qualification would be binding upon him. He would further contend that respondent No.5 referring to the order of respondent No.2 dated 05.11.2014 terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 17.11.2014. He would argue that the petitioner was found eligible and qualified, therefore, he was appointed. He would further argue that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the issuance of the order of termination from services. He would state that earlier a writ petition was filed and the same was withdrawn on the assurance of reinstatement. He would pray for a direction to respondent No.5 to reinstate the petitioner pursuant to the resolution and recommendation of the President-in-Council. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dubey. He would submit that an identical issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Lahre Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another on 02.07.2014 in WPS No.2728 of 2014 where it is held that it is open for the appointing authority to cancel the appointment and no exception can be drawn from the said action when it is brought to the notice of the appointing authority that the certificate of passing the qualifying examination is not genuine. He -4- would refer to paras 2 & 3, which read as under:- “2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Directorate, Urban Administration, Government of Chhattisgarh, has issued a communication (Annexure P/3) directing that such certificate/degree holders from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh be issued appointment after obtaining affidavit that they shall abide by the order passed by the Lucknow Court, therefore, the same method should have been adopted in the petitioner's case also. 3. Once it is brought to the notice of the appointing authority that the certificate of passing qualifying examination is not genuine, it is open for the appointing authority to cancel the appointment and no exception can be drawn from the said action. Letter issued by the Directorate of Urban Administration is for a different department because the petitioner is working in the Panchayat Department and the head of the petitioner's department has not issued any such instruction. In any case, appointment to a post depends upon having the requisite qualification and it does not depend upon the whims and fancies of a particular officer of some other department, who has issued some order knowing fully well that the certificate has been issued by an University, which is included in the list of fake Universities by the UGC.” 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has passed Post-Graduation and B.Ed. from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. One of the mark-sheet has been annexed by the petitioner. A decision was taken to terminate the services of the petitioner on the basis of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner wherein it was stated that if the qualification required for the post of Lecturer (Nagariya Nikay) would not be found genuine, the appropriate action may be taken. 5 A decision was taken by the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Chhattisgarh Raipur on 05.11.2014 pursuant to the order passed in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Lahre (supra) to cancel the appointment of teachers who acquired appointment on the basis of the mark-sheet issued by Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to the said decision, the services of the petitioner were terminated. In the matter of Rajesh Kumar Lahre (supra) where the subject matter was the certificate/degree issued from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and the affidavit filed by the candidates, in that matter, it is held that the certificates were issued by the University which is in the list of fake Universities by the UGC. 6. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the observations made in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Lahre (supra), no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha