1 2026:CGHC:5327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8155 of 2023 Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Dharam Lal Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Near Vidyut Grih School, Sahu Basti, Patharripara, District Korba (C.G.). ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Secretariate, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 4 - District Education Officer District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.). 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 6 - Block Education Officer Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 7 - Sarpanch / Secretary Village Panchayat Rasouta, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 8 - Satyendra Singh Chandel S/o Chhotelal Singh Chandel Aged About 38 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Academic Coordination Sankul AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 10:54:18 +0530 2 Centre - Rasouta, Janpad Panchayat Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Shri Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi appears on behalf of Shri Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocates. For State/Respondent : Shri Sangarsh Pandey, GA. For Respondent No.8 : Shri Vivek Singhal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/01/2026 1. By way of this petition, petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal and thereafter allow the petition. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to cancel the initial appointment of respondent No. 8 and consequently the order dated 2/5/2005 (Ann. P-2) and subsequent promotion (Ann. P-3). 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to initiate preliminary inquiry against the responsible officials who are/were involved in wrong appointment of respondent No. 8. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to grant any other relief or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that as per documents provided by the Gram Panchayat Rasouta under RTI, the respondent No. 8 submitted 3 his application in the year 2002 for contract teacher recruitment before the Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Rasouta, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Government Middle School, Rasouta (General Category). Alongwith application the respondent No. 8 submitted all the requisite documents. According to the said application, the date of birth of respondent No. 8 is 1-7-1985 and as on 1-7-2003 he completed 18 years and at the same time he was given appointment on the post of contract teacher after approval of Gram Panchayat Rasouta. After three years of service of respondent No. 8 as contact teacher, the respondent No.5 CEO Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh issued order dated 02/05/2005 (Annexure P-2) whereby the post of Contract Teacher Grade-III changed into Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and accordingly the respondent No. 8 was appointed on dated 1/5/2005 on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by the respondent No. 5. Thereafter vide order dated 20/10/2009 (Annexure P-3) issued by the respondent No. 5 the services of respondent No. 8 was regularized from 1/5/2007 with other teachers on completion of two years' probation period. Petitioner submits that the appointment of respondent No. 8 as contract teacher and thereafter on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was in accordance with Rule 7 sub-rule (4) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993 unfortunately, at that time, the respondent No. 8 was not eligible to hold post of Shiksha Karmi in view of the minimum age but the Respondent Authorities ignored the same. Thus, the appointment of respondent No. 8 was against the settled provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993. On 1/10/2021 petitioner submitted complaint (Annexure P-4) to various 4 authorities including the respondents for inquiry regarding first appointment of respondent No. 8 and for penal action, if found perpetrator. But of no avail. As mentioned above, the petitioner sought information regarding appointment of respondent No. 8 from the respondent No. 5 CEO who vide letter dated 29/6/2020 (Annexure P-5) further directed the respondent No. 6 BEO to provide information as sought by the petitioner and in turn the respondent No. 6 through undated letter (Annexure P-6) provided information to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 Collector after receipt of complaint of this petitioner issued memo No.13121/R.T.I/2021 dated 21/10/2021 (Annexure P-7) to the petitioner whereby the respondent No. 2 Collector instead of taking action on the complaint purportedly advised the petitioner that if he is not satisfied with the obtained information then he approach the C.G. State Information Commission by preferring second appeal. Thus the Collector has failed to initiate inquiry on the complaint of petitioner and wrongly issued memo. Hence the Collector deserves to be directed to hold inquiry on the complaint of petitioner against Respondent No.8 and other concerned officials. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of first appointment on the post of contract teacher, Respondent No.8 was minor and not eligible to hold the post and because of the wrongful action of respondent authorities, Respondent No.8 was illegally given the appointment and was regularized after two years of service after changing the post into Shiksha Karmi Grade-III from contract teacher. Considering the backdrop, he submits that appointment of Respondent No.8 deserves to be cancelled. 4. In the matter of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of 5 Maharashtra {(2013) 4 SCC 465}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the maintainability of the petition on the ground of locus standi of a person aggrieved. The Apex Court has held that a person aggrieved must be whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized to challenge the appointment of any government employee. Para 18 to 23 of the said judgment reads as under:- “18. As respondent no.5 does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribes candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be considered by this Court in order to determine whether respondent no. 5, is in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever. 19. This Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad & Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 407, held as under: 58. “Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because 6 it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria. 59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione voluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons. 60. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party.” 20. A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512, wherein it was held that, the applicant before the High Court could not challenge the 7 appointment of a person as she was in no way aggrieved, for she herself could not have been selected by adopting either method. Morever, the appointment cannot be challenged at a belated stage and, hence, the petition should have been rejected by the High Court, on the grounds of delay and non-maintainability, alone. 21. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 1, it has been held that a violation of the equality clauses, enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, or discrimination in any form, can be alleged, provided that, the writ petitioner demonstrates a certain appreciable disadvantage qua other similarly situated persons. While dealing with the similar issue, this Court in Raju Ramsingh Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhiavapurkar & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 54 held: 45. We must now deal with the question of locus standi. A special leave petition ordinarily would not have been entertained at the instance of the appellant. Validity of appointment or otherwise on the basis of a caste certificate granted by a committee is ordinarily a matter between the employer and the employee. This Court, however, when a question is raised, can take cognizance of a matter of such grave importance suo motu. It may not treat the special leave petition as a public interest litigation, but, as a public law litigation. It 8 is, in a proceeding of that nature, permissible for the court to make a detailed enquiry with regard to the broader aspects of the matter although it was initiated at the instance of a person having a private interest. A deeper scrutiny can be made so as to enable the court to find out as to whether a party to a lis is guilty of commission of fraud on the Constitution. If such an enquiry subserves the greater public interest and has a far- reaching effect on the society, in our opinion, this Court will not shirk its responsibilities from doing so.” (See also: Manohar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 619). 22. In Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P . , AIR 2001 SC 1739, this Court held: 2….Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of person is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.” 23. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus-standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred to 9 above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bonafides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo- motu, in such respect.” 5. The petitioner claims that Respondent No.8 was appointed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade III in violation of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shikhsha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993. At the first instance, when Respondent No.8 was appointed he was minor and not eligible to hold the post and as such, his initial appointment is void ab initio. Prayer has been made to cancel the appointment order of Respondent No.8 disputing his date of birth. 6. In the matter of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. 7. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, so far as locus of the petitioner is concerned, he is neither an aspirant in the subject recruitment process nor is he linked with the process of the appointment, therefore, petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved whose right or interest has been 10 adversely affected or jeopardised and as such, he has no locus to file the present petition challenging the appointment of Respondent No.8 which was made after following due process of law. 8. For the above discussion, this Court is of the view that petitioner does not have any locus in this case and this Writ Petition which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash