1 2026:CGHC:26065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4347 of 2022  Madhuri Thakur W/o Shri Toran Singh Thakur Aged About 53 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) At Govt. Primary School Duhiya, Block Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha. Adv. along with Mr. Satya Kumar Mandloi, Adv. For State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 25.6.2026 1) Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to modify order (Annexure P-1) and to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service from initial date of appointment instead of re-appointment with consequential / monetary benefit of the intervening period, within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2 2) Facts of present case are that petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 20.7.2007. Collector, Durg inquired into the higher secondary mark-sheet submitted by the petitioner and found it to be forged and bogus. Resultantly, her services were terminated and a direction was issued to lodge FIR vide order dated 7.7.2008. In the criminal case, petitioner was acquitted by the competent criminal court. Thereafter, petitioner filed WPS No. 3455 of 2020 which was disposed vide order dated 31.8.2020 holding that Collector exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the termination order and direction was issued to the respondents therein to decide the representation within period of 60 days. Pursuant to said order, petitioner preferred representation before Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Navagarh, who vide order dated 12.3.2021 re- appointed the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on probation for period of two years. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination order was passed by the Collector, Durg, who was not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and said order was never set aside in any proceeding whereas respondent No. 2 while deciding the representation of the petitioner re-appointed her on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on probation for period of 2 years. He contends that co-ordinate Bench in WPS No. 3455 of 2020 held that Collector, Durg issued termination order usurping its 3 jurisdiction therefore respondent No. 2 ought to have re-instated the petitioner back into service. He prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that higher secondary mark-sheet of the petitioner was found to be forged therefore Collector, Durg vide order dated 7.7.2008 terminated the services of the petitioner and said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. He contends that in WPS No. 3455 of 2020, direction was issued to respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and the authority has considered the representation of petitioner and re-appointed her on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) vide order dated 12.3.2021. He argues that this writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5) There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 2 even though reply has been filed in its behalf. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 7) It appears that petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 2.7.2007 and her services were terminated by Collector, Durg vide order dated 7.7.2008 without holding any inquiry. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed according to Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 [hereinafter to be referred as 4 ‘Rules of 1997’]. According to Rule 9 of Rules of 1997, the disciplinary controls are vested with Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat. For the sake of brevity, the Rule 9 is quoted hereinbelow :- "9. Discipline and Control:- The Shiksha Karmis shall be under the administrative control of Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be. The General Administration Standing Committee of the Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat, as the case may be, shall be the disciplinary authority for major punishment and the Chief Executive Officer of the Panchayat for the minor punishment." 8) It is quite vivid that in WPS No. 3455 of 2020, co-ordinate Bench recorded a categorical finding to the effect that Collector usurped the jurisdiction to terminate the services of the petitioner, no departmental inquiry was conducted either by the General Administration Standing Committee of the Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat and Rule 9 of Rules of 1997 was given a go by. Though, the order of termination was not set aside but it was clearly held that the order passed was without jurisdiction. It is well settled principle of law of law that an order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is void ab initio. 9) Petitioner was permitted to make representation and pursuant to said representation, she has been re-appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on probation for period of two years vide order dated 12.3.2021. The decision taken by the 5 respondent No. 2 appears to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the observations made by the co-ordinate Bench in WPS No. 3455 of 2020 as there was no occasion for the respondent No. 2 to re-appoint the petitioner, particularly when the order of termination was not passed by the competent authority/ disciplinary authority, the petitioner should have been reinstated in the service. 10) Accordingly, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Navagarh is directed to re-instate the petitioner in the service and the order dated 12.3.2021 is modified up the extent indicated above. It is made clear that petitioner shall be entitled for all benefits attached to the post treating her appointed on 20.7.2007. 11) In result, this writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.06.29 16:01:54 +0530