1 2026:CGHC:27186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8437 of 2022 * - Mrs. Lata Korram W/o Mr. Bansi Ram Korram Aged About 44 Years By Caste Ganda, Village Bagodar, Police Station Kanker Post Bagodar, Tahsil Kanker, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Director And Member Secretary State Literacy Mission Authority, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer And Member Secretary District Literacy Mission Authority, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat And Vice President, District Literacy Mission Authority, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Anushka Pathak, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 For Respondent No. 5 : : Ms. Vithika Choubey, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 Quash / set aside the order dated 18.08.22 issued by the respondent No. 2 and consequentially the order of removal may also be set aside. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.02 18:05:06 +0530 2 10.2 Direct the respondents and its authorities to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Sweeper with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.” 2. Ms. Anushka Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for post of Sweeper pursuant to Advertisement dated 18.10.2021. She would submit that the minimum qualification for said post was Class Vth pass. She would submit that the petitioner had cleared her Vth Class examination from Directorate of Adult Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, MHRD, Government of India in the year 2014. She would contend that according to the Circular dated 25.07.2012, Class Vth examination certificate passed from Directorate of Adult Education would be equivalent to Class Vth examination conducted by State Board. It is also argued that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sweeper on 09.05.2022. It is contended that the respondent No. 2 without holding any enquiry, terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that Vth pass certificate submitted by the petitioner is not equivalent to certificate of Class Vth granted by the State of Chhattisgarh. Ms. Anushka Pathak would submit that the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 is erroneous. She would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Vithika Choubey, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner passed Vth Class examination from Directorate of Adult Education which is not equivalent to regular Class Vth examination and therefore, the respondent No. 2 rightly terminated 3 the services of the petitioner. They would submit that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner passed Vth Class examination from Directorate of Adult Education. It is an education run by National Literacy Mission Authority, Directorate of Adult Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, MHRD, Government of India. The petitioner participated in the examination and cleared it and the certificate was issued on 15.10.2014. A Circular was issued by State of Chhattisgarh on 25.07.2012 wherein it is held that Vth Class certificate issued under Adult Education Scheme will be equivalent to the certificate issued by School Education Department of the State Government. The petitioner applied for post of Sweeper and she was selected. She joined services on 18.05.2022 and subsequently the respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner only on the ground that Vth Class examination certificate is not found valid. The reasons assigned by respondent No. 2 while terminating the services of the petitioner appear to be erroneous and contrary to the Circular issued by the State Government dated 25.07.2012. Further the respondent No. 2 ignored the fact that the Vth Class certificate in favour of the petitioner was issued by the Government of India, National Literacy Mission Authority. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, order Annexure P-11 dated 18.08.2022 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be 4 entitled for 40% of back wages along with other benefits attached to the post. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti