1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2902 of 2023 1 - Smt. Ranjna Devi Norge W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Norge Aged About 38 Years Occupation Shikshakarmi Grade 02 R/o Parsapali Choria Block Bamhnidih District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Secretary, School Education Department Chhattisgarh Government Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Lok Shikshan Sanchnalaya Chhattisgarh Indirawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bamhnidih District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 6 - District Education Officer Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 7 - Block Education Officer Bamhnidih District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondents VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04.12.2025 1. In the present petition, the petitioner was appointed as Education Personnel (Class–II) on 20.12.2010. Due to sudden ill-health, she proceeded to her native village on 25.10.2013 after duly informing the Head of Institution. Upon recovery, she reported back for duty, but the Headmaster directed her to submit her joining before the Development Block Education Officer, Bamhnidih. Accordingly, she submitted her joining application on 28.04.2014, yet no action was taken and the matter was repeatedly deferred on the pretext of awaiting instructions from the Directorate. Thereafter, respondent authorities required her to submit fresh applications and medical fitness certificates repeatedly (in 2019 and again in 2022), but still no decision was taken and she was made to run from office to office for years. Ultimately, despite the order of the Hon’ble Court dated 19.12.2022 directing consideration of her representation, respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 rejecting her joining and leave request without granting any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has been left 3 without duty assignment and her leave matter remains unresolved, causing grave injustice. Hence, the present writ petition is filed challenging the arbitrary and discriminatory action of the respondents and seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 यह कि उ्ቈरवा दीगण किदीशित किय जा वा कि वा य शि त कियሹኌत संबंधी संमस्त अभि$लेख म य न्य य लेय संम्ቌ ्ቚस्तत र। 10.2 यह कि उ्ቈरवा दीगण किदीशित किय जा वा कि वा य शि त अकिवालेबं य+$ र ्ቇहण र वा-।10.3 यह कि उ्ቈरवा दीगण यह $ किदीशित किय जा वा कि वा य शि अवा संबंधी ्ቚरण गणदीष पर किर रण र-। 10.3 यह कि उ्ቈरवा दीगण यह $ किदीशित किय जा वा कि वा य शि अवा संबंधी ्ቚरण गणदीष पर किर रण र-। 10.4 यह कि अन्य अतष जा म य न्य य लेय उशित ” संमझे उ्ቈरवा दीगण सं य शि त दिदीलेवा य जा वा। 3. Facts of the case are that The petitioner was appointed as Education Personnel, Class–II on 20.12.2010 (Annexure P-01). Due to sudden ill-health, she proceeded to her native village on 25.10.2013 after duly informing the Head of Institution. Upon recovery, when she returned to join duty, the Headmaster verbally directed her to submit her joining before the Block Education Officer, Bamhnidih, where she submitted a joining application on 4 28.04.2014 (Annexure P-02). However, her joining was not accepted and she was repeatedly told that instructions were awaited from the Directorate. Despite submitting multiple applications over the years, no decision was communicated, nor was her attendance recorded. Ultimately, after the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 19.12.2022 (Annexure P-05), respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 4 on 06.02.2023 (Annexure P-06) to examine and decide her joining/leave matter, but respondent No. 4, without granting any proper hearing, rejected her application by order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-07). Aggrieved by this arbitrary and unjust action, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without granting any opportunity of hearing and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the termination has been effected solely on the ground that during her period of probation, the petitioner remained on unauthorised leave for about 186 days. Relying upon Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, the respondents have taken the stand that a probationer is not entitled to avail long periods of leave, and on this basis, the petitioner has been removed from service. Learned counsel further submits that even her representation seeking permission to resume duties and rejoin service has been rejected without assigning proper reasons and without providing her any 5 meaningful opportunity to explain the circumstances under which she had remained absent. Hence, the petition deserved to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the order of termination suffers from no illegality and has been passed strictly in accordance with the governing service rules. It is contended that the petitioner, being a probationer, had no substantive right to hold the post, and her continuation in service was subject to satisfactory performance and conduct during the probation period. It is further submitted that the petitioner remained absent from duty for an excessively long period of 186 days without prior sanction or intimation, which amounts to gross misconduct and reflects complete disregard for discipline. In terms of Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, a probationer is not entitled to avail long spells of leave, and such prolonged unauthorised absence during probation clearly establishes her unsuitability for government service. Learned State counsel argues that the authorities were justified in dispensing with her services during the probation period, as the petitioner’s conduct itself demonstrated that she was not fit to be retained. Since the termination is simpliciter and not founded on any stigma, the requirement of a formal departmental inquiry or detailed pre- decisional hearing does not arise. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s subsequent representation was duly considered and rejected for valid reasons, and therefore no violation of the 6 principles of natural justice is made out. Accordingly, it is urged that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a careful examination of the record, it is evident that the petitioner had rendered only a minimal period of actual service i.e. approximately 45 days, before remaining absent from duty for an extraordinarily long spell of unauthorised leave extending to about 186 days. The petitioner has not been able to justify or satisfactorily explain such prolonged absence during the probation period. 8. As per Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, a probationer is not permitted to avail long periods of leave, and prolonged unauthorised absence may, in appropriate circumstances, be treated as abandonment of service. The competent authority, i.e., the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir-Champa, has considered the petitioner’s representation in light of the said rule and has rejected the same by observing that her long unauthorised absence amounts to deemed resignation from service. 9. Having regard to the statutory scheme governing probation and the specific mandate under Rule 11of the Rules, 2010, this Court 7 finds that the action of the employer cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The petitioner, being a probationer, did not acquire any right to hold the post, and her suitability for regular appointment had to be assessed on the basis of her conduct and performance during the probation period. A probationer who remains absent without authorisation for such an extended duration cannot claim entitlement to reinstatement as a matter of right. 10. The impugned order of the CEO, Zila Panchayat, reflects due consideration of the petitioner’s conduct, the applicable rules, and the nature of her absence. No procedural irregularity, perversity, or violation of statutory provisions is made out. The decision to reject her representation and treat her prolonged absence as deemed resignation is well within the authority of the employer and does not call for interference under writ jurisdiction. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned suffers from no infirmity whatsoever. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha