1 2025:CGHC:56142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6213 of 2025 Manoj Khare S/o Shri Shambhu Prasad Khare Aged About 45 Years Occupation Service, Posted As Lab Attendant, Institute Of Hotel Management Catering Technology And Applied Nutrition, Sector 40, Uparwara, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tourism, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Tourism Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Institute Of Hotel Management Catering Technology And Applied Nutrition Through Its Principal, Uparwara, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. 2 For Respondent No. 3 mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case pertaining to the service of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 15.05.2025 bearing no. 313/Stha./I.H.M./2025 passed by respondent no. 3. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into service along with all the consequential service benefits. 10.4Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 3 10.5 Cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the arbitrary order of the termination of service of the petitioner on a ground which was not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice of the petitioner. That, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lab Attendant in the respondent no. 3 institute on 12.09.2011 on probation of two years, which was subsequently ended on 08.11.2013 and the petitioner earned the status of permanent employee. On 01.04.2019, a Show Cause Notice for termination of the service of the petitioner was issued on the grounds that, in the appointment of the petitioner the reservation roaster was not followed and the petitioner was appointed without complete Corum of the Selection Committee and similar notices were issued to the other employees as well. The petitioner replied to the notice on 15.04.2019 and also challenged the notice before this Hon’ble Court by filing WPS No. 3375 of 2019, wherein on 06.05.2019 an interim order was passed of staying the effect and operation of the Show Cause Notice. The said WPS No. 3375 of 2019 was ultimately disposed by this Hon’ble Court on 09.04.2024 directing the respondents to consider the reply of the petitioners and passing speaking orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In furtherance of the said order, the petitioner was supplied the report of the inquiry conducted by the respondents and the petitioner also submitted its reply. On 27.08.2024, the petitioner was called for personal hearing and the petitioner appeared 4 before the respondent authorities and submitted its response. After completion of the proceedings, the petitioner was terminated vide impugned order dated 15.05.2025 on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the necessary experience required for appointment. 3. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant action on the part of the respondents of terminating the petitioner without any justification is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner fulfills all the essential qualifications as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2003 under which petitioner was appointed. The order of termination has been passed on the ground that, the petitioner does not possess the necessary experience required for appointment, which was never mentioned in the Show Cause Notice of the petitioner. The action of the respondent is completely unjustified as the petitioner possess the necessary experience and at the time of filing of the admission form the petitioner has submitted its experience certificate issued by the C.G. Tourism Board, wherein the petitioner had previously worked, which is the sister concern authority of the respondent no. 3 as both receives grant in aid from the respondent no 2. In the enquiry report of the year 2016, which was supplied to the petitioner and which is the basis of the termination of the petitioner, it was specifically mentioned that the experience of the petitioner was complete. The petitioner as on the date completed more than 14 years of service 5 in the department and the petitioner has gained the knowledge and experience in the field and thus the action of terminating the service of the petitioner would be against the public interest. 4. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been removed from service without conducting any proper departmental enquiry and such termination is in complete violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been terminated from the service without any basis, as neither in the audit report nor in the complaints, name of the petitioner has been mentioned. The action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner granted under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgayian, learned Counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the material facts and has deliberately made misrepresentation in order to mislead the Hon’ble Court. He would further contend that the factual matrix of the case is that the advertisement dated 16.01.2010 were issued for 18 posts in which 4 posts of lab attendant were also included by the answering respondents. The petitioner applied for the post of lab attendant and subsequently got appointed vide order No. 359 dated 12.09.2011. However, one Mr. V.K. Das, Shankar Nagar, Raipur vide letter dated 03.03.2014 made a complaint before the then Chief Secretary about the irregularities committed regarding the selection process in the direct recruitment by the answering respondent. After a thorough 6 inquiry on 06.10.2016, the then Principal, Institute of Hotel Management (hereinafter referred as IHM for the sake of brevity), submitted an enquiry report whereby it was clearly mentioned that selected Lab Attendants do not fulfill the criteria of experience as envisaged in the advertisement. In the audit report of the year 2015-16 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) also raised objection, in which the Audit team has noted that the qualification of the faculty members and other employees are not as per their standards. In pursuance to the above-mentioned complaint, enquiry report and audit objection, the Government vide letter dated 17.11.2017 directed to take action for cancelling the appointment made in IHM qua the advertisement dated 16.01.2010. In furtherance of that, the answering respondent issued show cause notice dated 01.04.2019 (Annexure P/7) to the petitioner as to why his appointment should not be cancelled. However, the petitioner preferred writ petition against the said show cause notice which was registered as WPS No. 896 of 2019. The Hon'ble Court after hearing was pleased to pass the order dated 09.04.2024, whereby the Hon'ble Court directed the answering respondent to take decision only after providing a copy of the investigation report alongwith relevant documents to these 14 petitioners and after granting them one month time to submit reply to the fresh show cause notice Upon the receipt of such reply filed by the petitioner and granting them opportunity of hearing, the concerned authority would pass a speaking order in accordance with law within an outer limit of four months time from 7 receipt of said reply. In compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 09.04.2024, the answering respondents herein issued a fresh show cause notice dated 23.04.2024 alongwith the original enquiry report dated 06.10.2016 submitted by the then Incharge Principle and directed the petitioner to submit his reply within a period of one month as directed by the Hon'ble Court (Annexure P/11). The enquiry report contained the details of selection made in pursuance to the advertisement dated 23.11.2010 and 24.11.2010 for various posts which included four posts of Lab Attendants and the enquiry report also provided details where the irregularities were present in the selection process of 11 candidates including the petitioner. The details in the enquiry report entailed inter-alia that the reservation roaster system was not followed in the appointment of the post of Lab Attendant. The enquiry report further provided that any recruitment should have been done only after the recommendation made by the Central Government's National Council of Hotel Management and Catering Technology (NCHMCT) according to clause ‘d’ of clause 18 of Memorandum of Association and rules and regulations of the Institute of Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition (Raipur) Society. It also stated that as per the clause 6.6 of recruitments and promotion rule 2003 formulated by NCHMCT, the presence of atleast 2/3rd of the members only shall form the quorum and the presence of Chairman is mandatory alongwith the Government of India nominee, which was not done. The enquiry report also reported that for the post of four posts of 8 Lab Attendant, roaster system as per the reservation rules has not been followed and Mr. Vedant Shrivastava and Smt. Leena Chandrakar do not fulfill the criteria of experience as published in the advertisement. The notice dated 23.04.2024 alongwith the enquiry report is already annexed in the writ petition by the petitioner as (Annexed P/11). The petitioner submitted his reply vide reply dated 21.05.2024 and stated that the adherence to the reservation roaster is the duty of the employer and the candidates have absolutely no role to play in it. Further, the petitioner stated in his reply that the quorum as fixed by the NCHMCT was present for his selection as his appointment has been done against the non teaching staff. Mostly, the petitioner fixed the blame only on the employer for non-adherence to the prescribed procedure and no-where stated anything about his own eligibility for the post of Lab Attendant. Upon receiving of the petitioner's reply, the Senior Accounting Officer of the answering respondent Institution vide letter dated 13.06.2024 sent the matter to the respondent No. 1 for further action as the post of Principle at the IHM was vacant at the relevant point of time. Copy of letter dated 13.06.2024 is annexed hereby as ANNEXURE R-3/1. 6. Mr. Badgayian further submits that the respondent No. 1 in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 09.04.2024 for the purpose of deciding the representation/reply submitted by the candidates as well as for further investigation into the matter vide order dated 27.08.2024, appointed Mr. Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Deputy Secretary, Department of Tourism, State of Chhattisgarh. 9 Copy of order dated 27.08.2024 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-3/2. For the purpose of fair enquiry into the matter the petitioner was immediately issued the information letter/notice dated 27.08.2024 to personally be present and put their case forward personally on 4.09.2024 at morning 11 AM before the newly appointed impartial enquiry officer. A copy of letter information letter/notice dated 27.08.2024 is annexed hereby as Annexure R-3/3. After the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report, granting personal hearing provided to the petitioner, to the Under Secretary, Department of Tourism, State of Chhattisgarh vide letter dated 04.09.2024, the Under Secretary forwarded the said enquiry report alongwith the covering letter to the Principal, Indian Hotel Management vide letter dated 04.02.2025 for passing of final order. This enquiry report clearly stated that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria of experience as prescribed under the advertisement. Copy of letter dated 04.02.2025 alongwith complete enquiry report is annexed hereby ANNEXURE R-3/4. It is noteworthy to mention here that the eligibility as advertise for the post of Lab Attendant with regard to Educational Qualification was 10+2 with certificate in Food and Nutrition or Certificate in Cookery. The age bar was 28 years for the said post and most importantly the criteria of experience was clearly laid down to be minimum 3 years experience in the same field. It is also relevant to mention at this juncture that the post of Lab Attendant in answering respondent Institution entails the responsibility in relation to assisting the Lecturers in the field of Cooking, 10 Housekeeping and other assistance in kitchen work. The petitioner fully knowing this fact as well as being aware that his experience certificate as issued by the Chhattisgarh Tourism Board was merely as Information Assistant, still applied for the post of Lab Attendant in the answering respondents institution and was not at all suitable for the prescribed post. The petitioner has deliberately skipped over this important lacuna in the selection process of year 2010 for his personal agenda and it is a well settled principle of law that one who does not come with clean hands before the Hon'ble Court is not entitled for equity from this Hon'ble Court. Copy of petitioner's application form alongwith supported documents is annexed herewith by as ANNEXURE R- 3/5. The petitioner in his reply to the show cause has shifted the blame on the employer, however if a selection process is tainted for whatsoever reason, then the candidates employed under the said selection process cannot be allowed to continue in their posts as it would be completely unfair to the other candidates as well as to the students studying in answering respondents institution in the present case. It is quite vivid from the enquiry report that many shortcomings were present in the selection process of the year 2010, such as non following of reservation roaster, non presence of complete quorum as per Rules, 2003 as well as specific non compliance of eligibility criteria as provided under the Rules 2003 as described in the preceding paragraph qua the petitioner himself. 7. Mr. Badgaiyan further submitted that the answering respondent 11 has complied with the direction issued by the Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 3375/2019 on 09.04.2024 as the petitioner has been issued a fresh show cause notice alongwith the complete enquiry report and proper opportunity of hearing with personal hearing has also been given as well, hence there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 15.05.2025. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the Answering Respondent, the present petition filed by the Petitioner, is devoid of merit and substance, thus, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. While denying every averment contained in the petition against the Answering Respondent running contrary to its above humble submissions, the Answering Respondent feel that, it has duly explained its case and at this stage, the Answering Respondent are not filing a parawise reply to the instant petition. The contentions and grounds raised in the instant petition, are completely irrelevant and without any substance, thus, the instant petition is not maintainable on this ground alone and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. for the State counsel submits that the answering respondents authorities, it is humbly submitted that, the instant writ petition as framed and filed by the petitioner against the answering respondent authorities, is without any substance, deserves to be dismissed, as the present petitioner has failed to demonstrate any infringement of writ for which, a writ may be issued by the Hon’ble Court against answering respondent authorities. She further submits that the entire 12 proceedings have been conducted in fair manner and nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to disclose that, any irregularity has been committed and the procedures are contrary to the rules. Therefore, in view of the above, the present petition is vague, baseless, devoid of any merit or substance and thus, deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. During the course of argument, this Court raised two specific queries which reads as under: • Whether any Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner for not having the experience? • Whether any malpractice or fraud was played by the petitioner for securing the appointment? 11. Mr. Shrivastava, Sr. Counsel on this point submits that the respondents are silent on this point, as at any point of time during enquiry, the petitioner was given any notice regarding not having the experience, moreover the Inquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, has submitted that, no fraud has been played by the petitioner. Thus, the termination of the petitioner is not justified, after serving for almost 14 years with the respondents. 12. Mr. Shrivastava, Sr. Counsel further submits that in the enquiry report of the year 2016, which was supplied to the petitioner is the basis of the termination of the petitioner wherein it was specifically mentioned that the experience of the petitioner was complete. The petitioner has as on date completed more than 14 years of service 13 in the department and the petitioner has gained the knowledge and experience in the field. The petitioner has worked for a considerable long period of time and has settled in its family life, thus removing the petitioner at this Stage would be unjust and unfair. 13. Mr. Badgaiyan would contend that the petitioner was not at all eligible to be appointed as a Lab Attendant in answering respondent’s institution, as the petitioner had only experience as an Information Assistant in the Tourism Board, whereas the experience required for a lab attendant in answering respondent institution requires experience in cooking, housekeeping, etc. 14. On perusal of record this Court found that as per the version of the petitioner, the factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lab Attendant in the respondent no. 3 institute on 12.09.2011 on probation of 2 years which was subsequently ended on 08.11.2013 and the petitioner earned the status of permanent employee. On 01.04.2019, a Show Cause Notice for termination of the service of the petitioner, was issued to the petitioner on the grounds that, in the appointment of the petitioner the reservation roaster was not followed and the petitioner was appointed without complete Corum of the Selection Committee. The petitioner replied to the notice on 15.04.2019 and also challenged the notice before this Court by filing writ petition bearing WPS No. 3375 of 2019, wherein on 06.05.2019 an interim order was passed of staying the effect and operation of the Show Cause Notice. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this 14 Court vide its order dated 09.04.2024 wherein it was held in para 4 and 5 as under: 4. Having regard to the submission of the parties, this Court directs that if any preliminary enquiry with regard to the proposed termination order has been conducted by the Respondent/Institution, the report/document in this regard be supplied to the petitioners within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioners may file a fresh reply to the show cause notice issued to them within a further period of 30 days. However, in case if no documents are supplied to the petitioners even after lapse of the aforesaid period, by the institution, the petitioners may file their reply after expiry of such period within 30 days. 5. Upon receipt of fresh reply by the petitioners and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within the stipulated time, the Institution/Authority shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of such reply. 15. Since the respondents had acted in a rather highhanded, arbitrary and illegal manner in terminating the service of the petitioner without justifiable reason and also following due process, the order dated 15.05.2025 terminating the service of the petitioner is hereby set-aside. The petitioner shall be treated to have been in continuous service. 16. At this point, Mr. Badgaiyan prays for a liberty to take fresh recourse. 17. However, while setting aside the order of the termination of the 15 petitioner from service, this Court order that the case is remanded back to the respondent authorities and the respondents are at liberty to take fresh recourse. 18. The present petition is hereby allowed on the aforesaid terms. 19. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima