1 2025:CGHC:29637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6481 of 2018 1 - Smt Seema Verma Earlier Seema Janghel W/o Shri Giriraj Singh Verma Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Govt. Primary School, Ragja, Block Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sakti, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 09.08.2017 (Annexure P./1) issued by respondent no. 2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to continue the benefit with the petitioner is entitled on account of B.Ed. examination. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.03 11:36:57 +0530 2 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 2. Mr. C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner, who was appointed to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III vide order dated 16.02.2009, moved an application before respondent No. 2 seeking permission to pursue B.Ed. course in the academic year 2012-13 vide application dated 17.09.2012. He would submit that the application remained pending, the petitioner applied for medical leave and at the same time, she completed one year B.Ed. course from Shri Ram Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Digvijay Stadium Campus, Rajnandgaon in the year 2012-13. He would contend that ipso facto permission was granted by respondent No. 2 in favour of petitioner vide order dated 09.07.2017. It is argued that respondent No. 2 without affording any opportunity of hearing and without assigning sufficient reason, cancelled the order dated 09.07.2017 vide order dated 09.08.2017. He would contend that as the petitioner has already completed B.Ed. course, there was no occasion for respondent No.2 to cancel the order dated 09.07.2017. He would pray to allow this writ petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. 4. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that the petitioner pursued her studies in the year 2012- 13 and at that time, no permission was not granted by the department. He would further submit that at present, the services of the petitioner have already been absorbed with the School Education Department, therefore, the Panchayat Department cannot take any decision. It is 3 also argued that the petitioner would claim further benefits on the basis of the B.Ed. Certificate, therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 5. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate would support the contention made by Mr. Abhishek Pandey. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner pursued her studies one year B.Ed. course in the year 2012-13. An application seeking permission to pursue B.Ed. course in the academic 2012-13 was moved on 17.09.2012, but no order was passed by the competent authority granting permission to the petitioner to pursue studies. The petitioner completed her studies and thereafter application moved by the petitioner was allowed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 09.07.2017 and ipso facto permission was granted. Respondent No. 2 without affording any opportunity of hearing even without issuance of any notice, cancelled the order dated 09.07.2017 vide order dated 09.08.2017. The decision taken by respondent No. 2 dated 09.08.2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and right had already accrued in her favour, therefore, the petition is allowed and the order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 09.08.2017 is hereby quashed. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti 4