1 2025:CGHC:49135-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 644 of 2025 Smt. Seema Yadav W/o Shri Keshwar Yadav Aged About 36 Years Caste - Ahir, Occupation - Anganbadi Karyakarta, R/o Village - Shyamnagar, Tahsil Pratappur Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh 3. The Collector Distti. Surajpur Chhattisgarh 4. District Woman And Child Development Officer Distti. Surajpur Chhattisgarh 5. District Programme Officer Woman And Child Development Project, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh 6. The Project Officer Unified Child Development Project, Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 7. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 8. Smt. Parmeshwari W/o Manoj Rajwade Aged About 27 Years Caste - Rajwade, R/o Village - Shyamnagar, Kharkhapara, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.26 10:22:09 +0530 2 WA No. 705 of 2025 Smt. Parmeshwari W/o Manoj Rajwade Aged About 27 Years (Now Aged About 37 Years) Caste Rajwade, R/o Village Shyamnagar, Kharkhapara, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 8) ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2. The Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur Chhattisgarh, 3. The Collector, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4. District Woman And Child Development Officer, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 5. District Programme Officer, Woman And Child Development Project, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh, 6. The Project Officer, Unified Child Development Project, Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, 7. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, 8. Smt. Seema Yadav W/o Shri Keshwar Yadav Aged About 27 Years Caste Ahir, Occupation Anganbadi Karyakarta, R/o Village Shyamnagar, Kharkha Para, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) ---Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate in WA No. 644 of 2025 and for respondent No. 8 in WA 705 of 2025. For Respondent/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate in WA No. 644 of 2025 and for appellant in WA No. 705 of 2025. 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25 .09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 644 of 2025 and for respondent No. 8 in WA No. 705 of 2025. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State in both the appeals, as well as Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8 in WA No. 644 of 2025 and for the appellant in WA No. 705 of 2025. 2. These two writ appeals arise out of the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3968 of 2015 (Smt. Seema Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). WA No. 644 of 2025 has been filed by the appellant, Smt. Seema Yadav, seeking modification of the impugned order, particularly regarding the quantum of back wages. WA No. 705 of 2025 has been preferred by respondent No. 8, Smt. Parmeshwari, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge reinstating the appellant. 3. The facts in WA No. 644 of 2025 are that the appellant applied for the post of Aanganbadi Worker, along with other candidates including respondent No. 8, for the Aanganbadi Center, Shyamnagar, Kharkhapara, Tahsil-Pratappur, District Surajpur. After counseling and 4 verification of testimonials, she was appointed vide order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P/8 in the writ petition) and joined service on 23.12.2009 (Annexure P/9 in the writ petition). Respondent No. 8 challenged her appointment before the Collector, Surguja, which was dismissed on 25.10.2010 for want of prosecution. Instead of seeking restoration, respondent No. 8 filed a fresh appeal. After about four years, respondent No. 4/District Woman and Child Development Officer, Surajpur, issued a notice to the appellant to produce all relevant marksheets. The appellant submitted her marksheets and reply, and after verification, respondent No. 4 opined that the complaint was baseless. Despite this, the Collector allowed respondent No. 8’s appeal, cancelled the appellant’s appointment, and directed the appointment of respondent No. 8 in her place. The appellant then filed a second appeal before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, who granted interim stay, but ultimately dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.09.2015. The appellant then filed WPS No. 3968 of 2015, which was allowed on 11.06.2025, reinstating her with 50% back wages. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 644 of 2025 submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly observed that there was no fault on the part of the appellant. After passing Class 10th, the Manisha Public School, Silfili, could not remain operational due to paucity of students; however, the marksheets and testimonials issued by the institution cannot be rendered infructuous or lose validity. 5 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the termination was unjustified merely because the school was no longer functional. The learned Single Judge’s order granting only 50% back wages was argued to be contrary to law, as per precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts, which require full back wages if the fault lies with the employer in termination. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 8 and appellant in WA No.705 of 2025 submitted that the last date for submitting applications was 08.06.2008 and was never extended. The appellant’s Class 10th marksheet was issued on 19.06.2008, hence she did not hold the essential qualification on the last date. It was also pointed out that the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Silfili, issued certificates stating that no school in the name of Manisha Public Higher Secondary was functioning in the area. 7. It was further contended that the District Education Officer and the Chhattisgarh Secondary Education Board, Raipur, confirmed that no school was registered under that name. Discrepancies in earlier marksheets (Class 5 and 10) raised doubts of forgery and fabrication. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in relying solely on a letter dated 21.02.2025 from the Block Education Officer, which did not furnish complete information regarding the school’s affiliation. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the record. 6 9. It is undisputed that the appellant was appointed on 22.12.2009 and joined on 23.12.2009. Respondent No. 8 initially filed an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, but a fresh appeal was filed. On 29.04.2013, respondent No. 4/District Woman and Child Development Officer issued notice for verification of the marksheets and submitted a report. The Collector, Surguja, vide order dated 17.12.2014, allowed respondent No. 8’s appeal and quashed the appellant’s appointment. Against this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed it on 29.09.2015. 10. The notice dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure P/16 in the writ petition) confirms that the Class 10 marksheet issued by Manisha Public School, Silfili, was recognized at the time of appointment and that the complaint of respondent No. 8 was baseless. 11. The Collector, however, allowed respondent No. 8’s appeal on the ground that the appellant’s Class 10 marksheet was issued after the last date of submission of applications (19.06.2008 vs. 08.06.2008) and also expressed doubts regarding its genuineness. 12. Respondent No. 7/CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur filed documents (Annexures R/7-1 & R/7-2 in the writ petition) confirming that no institute under the name of Manisha Public Higher Secondary School was functioning at Silfili at the relevant time. 13. Pursuant to a learned Single Judge direction dated 17.12.2024, the District Education Officer, Surajpur, filed an affidavit confirming, based on information from the Block Education Officer, that Manisha 7 Public Higher Secondary School, Silfili, was operational from 2006 to 2012, though not functioning presently. 14. It is thus clear that the appellant’s Class 10 marksheet was issued on 19.06.2008, and at that time, the school was duly recognized. The Collector and Commissioner failed to appreciate these facts and relied solely on the argument of delay in marksheet issuance, without verifying the school’s operational status from the Education Department. 15. On the basis of the above discussions, the orders of the Collector dated 17.12.2014 and the Commissioner dated 29.09.2015 are unsustainable. The learned Single Judge rightly reinstated the appellant with 50% back wages, considering the facts of the case and rival claims. No interference is called for in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 16. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.06.2025 stands affirmed. Respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the appellant and provide 50% back wages as directed by the learned Single Judge. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan