1 2025:CGHC:5059 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 764 of 2025 1 - Puneshwar Kumar Sen S/o Shiv Kumar Sen Aged About 39 Years R/o- Ward No. 04, Khairjhiti, Post- Mandeli, District- Gariyaband, (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The District Collector District- Gariyaband, (C.G.) 3 - Janpad Panchayat Chhura Through The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Chhura, District Gariyaband, (C.G.) 4 - Sub Division Officer (Revenue) Tehsil- Chhura, District Gariyaband, (C.G.) 5 - Nagesh Kumar Sahu S/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Grade 3, Janpad Panchayat Chura, Distt- Gariyaband ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.11 21:35:03 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/01/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a computer operator on contractual basis vide order dated 6.2.2016 and was directed to continue till further orders. He was performing his duties, however, all of a sudden, vide order dated 25.10.2024, the services of the petitioner was terminated stating that the post itself has been abolished. The petitioner immediately rushed to this Court and filed WPS No.7468/2024, however, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn to take recourse of law. Thereafter, respondent No.5 has been appointed vide resolution dated 1.10.2024 on the post of computer operator on contract basis. Before passing of the impugned termination order, respondent No.5 has been appointed vide resolution dated 1.10.2024 and thereafter the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chhura has terminated the petitioner and has passed order that the post of computer operator itself is abolished. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that contractual appointment cannot be substituted by another contract appointment. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292. He has also placed reliance on another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 485 in which it has been stated that one ad hoc appointment cannot be replaced by another ad hoc appointment. 3 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the contesting party would be respondent No.3 through the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Chhura. The State is a formal party. Though he submits that the order seems to be erroneous one. 3. I have considered the rival submissions. I have perused the impugned order as also the resolution dated 1.10.2024 by which before abolition respondent No.5 has been appointed on the post of computer operator on contract basis. It seems that respondent No.3 is interested to remove the petitioner to replace the petitioner by respondent No.5. The Chief Executive Officer has committed an illegality and has committed an act of mischief with the system and as such he should be answerable. 4. Accordingly, while quashing the impugned termination order dated 25.10.2024 and directing respondent No.3 to take back services of the petitioner, I am hereby directing the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband to seek explanation from the concerned Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Chhura about passing of the above orders and the explanation be sent to the Registry of this Court for taking necessary action against him. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh