1 2026:CGHC:22877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5912 of 2018  Smt. Kailash Mandavi W/o Shri Radhuveer Mandavi Aged About 42 Years Earlie Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Government Primary School Harratala, Block Mohla District Rajnandgaon R/o Village Harratala, Post Gotatala, Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPS No. 6396 of 2018  Milla Gote D/o Shri Dhiriyar Gote Aged About 48 Years Earlier Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Government Primary School Salhe, Block Mohla District Rajnandgaon, R/o Village Wasdi, Post- Marri, Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Collector, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 2. Collector Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPS No. 6344 of 2018  Smt. Devela Kunjam W/o Shri Mahesh Kunjam Aged About 40 Years Earlier Posted As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Government Primary School Parvidih, Block Mohla District Rajnandgaon, R/o Near Sanjay Jhurri/ Mahesh Kunjam, Telitala, Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Ishaan Saluja, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 14.5.2026 3 1) In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners have challenged their respective termination orders dated 24.3.2018 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mohala, District Rajnandgaon and the subsequent orders passed in the respective appeals by District Collector, Rajnandgaon dated 9.7.2018. 2) Particulars of petitioners are as under :- Name Date of appointment to the post of Instructor Date of Regularization Date of Show cause Notice Date of termination Smt. Kailash Mandavi (WPS/5912/2018) 6.3.2012 (Primary School- Harratola) 6.3.2014 13.3.2018 24.3.2018 Smt. Devela Kunjam (WPS/6344/2018) 6.3.2012 (Primary School- Parvidih) 6.3.2014 13.3.2018 24.3.2018 Milla Gote (WPS/6396/2018) 6.3.2012 (Primary School- Salhe) 6.3.2014 13.3.2018 24.3.2018 3) Initially petitioners were appointed to the post of Instructor (गुरुजी) in respective Alternative Schools in District Rajnandgaon in the year 1995. A scheme was floated by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department on 29.3.2003 which provided for upgradation of those deserving teachers, who have acquired requisite qualifications working in Shiksha Guarantee Centres and those teachers who have not attained such qualifications for selection to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were granted two years time to acquire required educational qualifications. The timeline was extended by the State Government for one year vide order dated 24.9.2008. Pursuant to the aforesaid policy, 4 petitioners and other similarly situated persons were appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide orders dated 6.3.2012 and subsequently their services were regularized vide orders dated 6.3.2014. Show-cause notices were served on petitioners on 13.3.2018 alleging that petitioners failed to acquire the requisite qualifications within the prescribed period. Petitioners filed reply to the show-cause notices and Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mohala vide its orders dated 24.3.2018 canceled the appointment orders of petitioners. Petitioners preferred appeals and same were dismissed by District Collector, Rajnandgaon vide its orders dated 9.7.2018. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts strictly in accordance with the prevailing rules and later on their services were regularized. He contends that respondent authorities were under obligation to conduct departmental inquiry after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the termination of petitioners’ services dehors the service rules and the constitutional mandate. He argues that the orders of termination passed by the CEO, Janpad Panchayt, Mohala as well as the orders passed by District Collector, Rajnandgaon in appeal are bad in law and deserve to quashed. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that present are not the 5 cases where services of an employee have been terminated in breach of principles of natural justice rather ample time was provided to the petitioners to attain the requisite educational qualifications but they failed to fulfill the criteria therefore show- cause notices were issued against the petitioners and upon receipt of reply, final decision was taken by the authority concerned. They contend that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7) Evidently, petitioners were appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and they were granted time up to 29.9.2009 to attain the requisite qualifications. It appears that petitioners could not acquire those qualifications within the stipulated time frame therefore their services were terminated. 8) Petitioners have placed their respective mark-sheets of higher secondary along with the petitions, which show that they acquired the said qualification in the years 2010 and 2011. Thus, required qualifications were acquired by the petitioners prior to issuance of termination orders i.e. 24.3.2018. It is also not in dispute that no inquiry was conducted prior to terminating the services of petitioners. 9) The Hon’ble Division bench in WA No. 448 of 2017, Krishna Kumar Daharia vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others and other 6 connected matters decided on 24.09.2018 observed as under:- 11. It seems that the CMHO only issued a show cause to the employees and without even considering the individual responses issued a common order of termination enmass of these employees. 12. The process and procedure which was adopted obviously violates the principle of natural justice. The employees were required to be given individual notice and proper opportunity by the Appointing Authority before a kind of finding or conclusion could be reached in relation to such appointment being either illegal or irregular. The process and procedure which has been adopted by the Respondent- State authorities is unknown in service jurisprudence, therefore, the order which is under challenge and which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge would be required to be interfered with. 14. The issue is not about the principle. The issue is the manner and mechanism under which the whole exercise has been done. If the employee who is substantively appointed and have been confirmed under services were terminated on the basis of an enquiry in which they were never given an opportunity to participate and only a formality of show cause was issued to them on the basis of the three members Committee report, then in our opinion, it does not satisfy requirements of the rules of the natural justice or requirement under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 15. In the facts and circumstances, we therefore, hold the order of termination dated 16.06.2016 passed by the CMHO, Baloda Bazar as well as the order dated 27.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding 7 such decision of termination to be irrational and arbitrary and therefore, they deserve to be set aside and are set aside. It goes without saying that all these Appellants will be reinstated in their services forthwith. 16. The respondents, however, are given liberty that they will issue individual notices and hold enquiry in relation to the appointments on the post so made of all these terminated employees and this exercise cannot be a collective exercise because the authorities will have to identify as to which appointment was irregular and which appointment was illegal in the enquiry. In the departmental proceeding to be held and on the findings thereon, the law will take its course. The said enquiry will be concluded preferably within a period of six months. 10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Krishna Kumar Daharia (supra), orders of termination passed by CEO- Janpad Panchayat, Mohala and the subsequent orders passed in appeal by District Collector, Rajnandgaon are hereby quashed. Respondent authorities are directed to re-instate the petitioners with full back-wages. 11) In result, these petitions are allowed. However, respondent authorities would be at liberty to take action against the petitioners strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.05.22 12:09:04 +0530