1 2025:CGHC:35612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1459 of 2021  Lokeshwar Kumar Kaushik S/o Gaukaran Prasad Koushik Aged About 31 Years Working As Lecturer Panchayat Sanskrit, At Government Higher Second School Dudar, Baikuthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Of Panchayat And Rural Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Of School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Collector Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4. District Education Officer Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Koriya District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Topi Lal Bareth, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.24 10:23:30 +0530 2 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may please to quash the impugned order dated 06-02-2020 (ANNEXURE P-1) Passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Koriya, District – Koriya (C.G.) 10.3 That, this Hon’ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an advertisement was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Koriya, for various posts, including one post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) on 17.07.2012. He would further submit that in the advertisement, for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit), there were 20 posts for Scheduled Tribe (Male), 5 posts for Scheduled Tribe (Female), two posts for Scheduled Caste (Male) as well as one post for Other Backward Class (Male) and one for Other Backward Class (Female) candidates. He would also submit that the petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Class; he submitted his application from and was selected against the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (Male) category. He would contend that the petitioner had submitted relevant documents to demonstrate that he belongs to the Other Backward Class category, even though he was appointed against the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (Male) category. Mr. Yadav would further argue that the petitioner was appointed to the said post vide order dated 15.01.2013 and his services were regularised vide order dated 16.03.2016. It is further contended that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 5 on 18.06.2020, which was replied to on 24.06.2020. He would also contend that without holding any enquiry, the order Annexure P/1 dated 06.02.2021 was passed, and the services of the petitioner were terminated. It is stated 3 that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. He would pray to quash the order Annexure P/1 dated 06.02.2021. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kavita Solunke vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2012 CJ (SC) 952. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Class and one post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) was reserved for the OBC (Male) category. They would further submit that the petitioner was appointed against the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (Male) category, and he accepted the offer of appointment. They would also submit that the petitioner never disclosed this fact to the department. They would contend that the Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur addressed a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Koriya to the effect that the petitioner is a member of the Other Backward Class and he has been appointed against the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category, and thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued, and after receipt of the reply, the order Annexure P/1 was passed. They would further contend that the petitioner has admitted that during the service period, he never informed the employer of the mistake of the department. They would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a member of the Other Backward Class (OBC). He participated in the recruitment process for the appointment to the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) against the post reserved for the OBC (Male). It is not in dispute that there was only one post for OBC (M). The petitioner 4 submitted his application form showing himself as a member of the OBC, but he was offered an appointment against the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (Male) category. The petitioner did not inform the respondent authorities of this mistake immediately after the issuance of the appointment order; rather, he accepted it and joined the services. He worked for long seven years, and in between, he never disclosed this fact. 6. The Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, came across the documents submitted by the petitioner and sent a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Koriya. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 18.06.2020, and it was duly replied to by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner admitted the fact that he failed to disclose this fact to the respondent authorities during these years. Respondent No. 5 passed the order Annexure P/1 and terminated the services. 7. In the matter of Kavita Solunke (supra), the employee submitted her application form for the post of Teacher as a member of the Scheduled Tribe, and she was appointed. Later on, her caste credentials were referred for verification and the committee found that the employee does not belong to the Halba Caste and the caste certificate was canceled, in such premises, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 16 held that she had not fabricated or falsified the particulars of being a Scheduled Tribe only with a view to obtain an undeserved benefit in the matter of appointment as a Teacher, and therefore, her services were reinstated. Relevant paragraphs 16 & 17 are reproduced herein-below:- “16. Applying the above to the case at hand we do not see any reason to hold that the appellant had fabricated or falsified the particulars of being a Scheduled Tribe only with a view to obtain an undeserved benefit in the matter of appointment as a Teacher. There is, therefore, no reason 5 why the benefit of protection against ouster should not be extended to her subject to the usual condition that the appellant shall not be ousted from service and shall be re- instated if already ousted, but she would not be entitled to any further benefit on the basis of the certificate which she has obtained and which was 10 years after its issue cancelled by the Scrutiny committee. 17. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the reinstatement of the appellant in service subject to the condition mentioned above. We further direct that for the period the appellant has not served the institution which happens to be an aided school shall not be entitled to claim any salary/back wages. She will, however, be entitled to continuity of service for all other intents and purposes. The respondent shall do the needful within a month from the date of this order. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 8. The facts of the present case are entirely different from the case cited by the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner submitted his application form for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) as a member of the OBC, and he was offered appointment against the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. Without any objection, he accepted the offer and worked for long seven years, and during these years, he never informed the employer of this illegality. The department came to know about this mistake, and thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued. 9. With regard to the enquiry, the foundation of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) (Male) is illegal and against the constitutional mandate, and further, the petitioner has admitted his mistake in reply filed to the show-cause notice; therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant