1 2025:CGHC:12566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 943 of 2021 Smt. Jyoti Hirwani W/o Shri Khemraj Aged About 29 Years Permanent R/o Ward No. 10, Nagar Panchayat Bhatapara, Aamdi, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) Present Address C/o Amiya Patnaik, Naktiguda, Bhawanipatna, District Kalahandi, Odisha, District : Kalahandi, Orissa. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner, Division Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4. District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5. Block Education Officer, Kurud, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Barun Chakrabarty, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. T.Nande, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 ; Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.01 16:23:22 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 17/03/2025 1. The petitioner who was working as Lecturer (Panchayat) in the category of non-B,Ed with respondents has filed this petition assailing order dated 01.05.2018 passed by respondent No.1 Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development in case No. 441/ Nyay. Pancha/2016-17 and termination order dated 13.04.2015 issued by respondent No.3 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Dhamtari, by which the revision filed by the CEO has been upheld on the count that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for appointment on the post of Lecturer on the category of non- B.Ed, as 35 B.Ed candidates were available in the wait list, therefore, order dated 08.04.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur in case No. R. A. P. No. 55-A/89 year 2015-16 has been rejected and also against the order dated 13.04.2015 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the Chief Executive Officer. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 3 has initiated proceeding for appointment of Lecturer in the pay scale of Rs. 5300-1500- 8300 along with all admissible DA. The petitioner was wait list candidate and he was appointed on 09.04.2015 as Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School Siloti in block Kurud, District Dhamtari. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner was not having B.Ed degree, therefore, his appointment order was cancelled on 13.04.2015 by the Chief Executive Officer District Dhamtari. It is also case of the petitioner that the termination order was not communicated to him, as such he worked there more than 6 months thereafter the petitioner filed WP(S) No. 4613 of 2015 wherein vide order dated 04.12.2015 the 3 Coordinate Bench directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner(Revenue) within 30 days and in pursuance of the order the petitioner preferred an appeal before Divisional Commissioner Revenue Raipur which was registered as case No. 55-A/89 year 2015-16. Divisional Commissioner Revenue Raipur has allowed the appeal vide order dated 08.04.2016 and set aside the order dated 13.04.2015. Being aggrieved with the order, Chief Executive Officer, Dhamtari preferred a revision before Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development in case No. 441/ Nyay. Pancha/2016-17. The Secretary has allowed the revision filed by the CEO and set aside the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur and also directed to take disciplinary action against the officer who has initiated procedure for appointment of non-B.Ed candidates. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Secondary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in violation of Rules, the impugned order was passed and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner which is glaring mistake on the part of the respondent and also violation of principle of natural justice, as such he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that the impugned order passed by the Secretary Panchayat Department is legal, justified as 35 candidates are already available in the waiting list, there was no justified reason on behalf of the authority to forgo B.Ed candidate who were much suitable than the petitioner for teaching job. Even otherwise, as per Right to Education Act, 2009 and Rule made therein for appointment as teaching 4 members in the education department B Ed/ D Ed degree have been compulsory for imparting education and the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification as such also in the year 2015 the appointment of the petitioner on the post of lecturer is de hors the rules. Thus he would submit that the impugned orders passed are legal and justified and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in view of the appointment order dated 09.04.2015 the petitioner continued worked for six months and she has been paid salary, therefore, in the worst view of the matter, salary cannot be recovered from the petitioner as it will amount unjust reachment and against the equity also. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 would submit that since 16.04.2015 impugned order was passed therefore, there was no justification to continue the petitioner in the service, as such recovery order was passed and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition in all aspects of the matter. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the record it is quite vivid that the petitioner was not having B Ed degree. It is not in dispute that about 35 candidates are available in the wait list who were more qualifying candidates than the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that under Right to Education Act for imparting education candidate should have B Ed degree or diploma in education which is statutory requirement in the Rules also now a days, as such there is no justifiable reason for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to bypass the entire criteria for imparting education. Even otherwise, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that for upgradatng of young children more qualifying 5 teacher is required to strengthen the academic standard of the students, therefore, there is no justifiable reason for consideration of the petitioner’s appointment on the post of lecturer. Considering the fact that the orders passed by the Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development as well as Chief Executive Officer are not suffers from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court. Even otherwise the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality in the decision making process. 9. Further considering the fact that the appointment order was issued to the petitioner on 09.04.2015 and he worked there more than 6 months and no material was placed on record by the respondent regarding communication of the impugned order which has compelled the petitioner to discharge his duty for the said period, I am of the view that so far as order of recovery dated 31.12.2015 to the tune of Rs. 96,632/- deserves to be quashedm and it is quashed. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to retain the salary which he has already been given while discharging as Lecturer and no recovery to the tune of Rs. 96,632/- is required to be made from the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. No order as to the cost. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh