1 2025:CGHC:54288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7767 of 2022 Rasbihari Tamrakar S/o Brindravan Tamrakar, aged about 42 years R/o Tikrapara, Yadav Mahulla, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. District Education Officer District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 2257 of 2023 Vishwas Pradhan S/o Japeshwar Pradhan, aged about 26 years R/o - 122, Kalapaniya Para, Toshgaon, 493558, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, Department of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, Department of School Education Indrawati Bhawan, Block-C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 4. Joint Director, Education Department, Durg Division, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5. District Education Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 7280 of 2022 Sakina Ali W/o Adnan Ali aged about 30 years R/o Block Colony Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. District Education Officer, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 9064 of 2022 Gayatri Nagesh W/o Santosh Kumar Bhanu aged about 28 years R/o 568, Ward No 17, Talpara, Pawani, Chhattisgarh, 493338 District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Directorate of Public Instructions Through Its Director, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 7072 of 2022 Parvati W/o. Budhsingh Baiga aged about 27 years R/o. Gram Jhiriya (Nali Para), Post- Khudiya, Tehsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 3 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Directorate Of Public Instrcutions, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 3. District Education Officer, District- Mungeli (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 8997 of 2022 Sheshdutt Lanjhekar S/o Late Shri Sunderlal Lanjhekar aged About 42 years R/o- 160, Ward No. 8, Rabeli, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through It's Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Directorate Of Publice Instructions Through It's Director, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4. District Education Officer District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri CJK Rao and Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocates For Respondents : Shri R.K. Gupta, Additional AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board dated 06/11/2025 Issue to be decided in all the aforesaid Writ Petitions is almost identical, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order, taking the facts of WPS 7767 of 2022 as a lead one. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that an advertisement dated 09.03.2019 (Annexure P-3) was issued by the respondents/authority inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher for different subjects. Petitioner in WPS No. 7280/2022 had made an application for considering candidature on the post 4 of Assistant Teacher (Arts – English Medium), in WPS No. 7767/2022 it was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science – English Medium), in WPS Nos. 7072/2022, WPS No. 8997/2022, in WPS No. 9064/202 and WPS No. 22572023 it was for Assistant Teacher (Science – E Cadre). Petitioners appeared in the written examination and were found successful in the same. Select list was prepared and the names of the petitioners find place therein. Thereafter, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher for their respective subjects and categories in Bilaspur and Mungeli districts, which they joined accordingly. However, all of a sudden, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the appointment orders of the petitioners were cancelled vide order dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-1). Order impugned shows that the recruitment process started in pursuance of advertisement (Annexure P-3) is still continuing and the petitioners are allotted some other district, for which they moved representation before the Director, Public Instructions, Raipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that appointment of the petitioners has been cancelled only on the ground that the post for which they had made applications does not exist in Bilaspur and Mungeli districts in their category. They submit that the petitioners are more meritorious than the candidates appointed in other districts, which is also admitted by the respondents in their return. It is submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to work in any of the districts in the State, and if the State so desires, it may transfer the services of the petitioners to any district where the post in their respective category is vacant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State vehemently opposes the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners and 5 submits that the post of the petitioners was temporary in nature. He submits that as the posting was made by the computerized mechanism and as such the category in which the petitioners made their applications were not available in Bilaspur and Mungeli District, their appointment order was rightly cancelled. However, their cancellation order reflects that for their posting in any other district in their respective category is lying vacant and the petitioners can make their representation before the Director, Public Instructions, Raipur, and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in so doing. He submits that as no post was lying vacant in the respective category for which petitioners made their applications, the impugned order was required to be passed canceling their appointment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. From the documents on record it is apparent that the recruitment drive was initiated by the respondents by publishing advertisement (Annexure P- 3). Advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in E cadre and T cadre for various subjects. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners made their applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (E-cadre) in their respective subjects and category. It is also not in dispute that they were found successful in the recruitment process and appointment order was also issued in their favour in Bilaspur and Mungeli districts which was subsequently cancelled by the impugned order giving the reasons as already stated above. It is not a case where before passing the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioners any show- cause notice was issued or opportunity of hearing given. As per the submissions of the State counsel, the allotment of posting was made by the 6 computerized mechanism and if any mistake has occurred in that, the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer. A fair submission has been made by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready and willing to be accommodated in any other district of the State where the posts in their category are lying vacant, which appears to be genuine and bona fide. Admittedly, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the order impugned canceling their appointment orders. Cancellation order also reflects that the recruitment was continued and the petitioners were at liberty to make a representation to the Director, Public Instructions, Raipur. That being the fact situation and keeping in view the fact that in WPS No. 2257/2023 an interim order was passded in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned cancellation order cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, the impugned order in all the writ petitions stands set aside. However, it would be open for the respondents to accommodate the petitioners in any other district where the posts in their category are lying vacant, on an application in this regard is made by them. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petitioners stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.11.07 16:37:47 +0530