1 CGHC010262312019 2026:CGHC:34484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6145 of 2019 Dilip Kumar Khandey S/o Lakhan Lal Khandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chandrakhuri, Post Baitalpur, Tahsil Patharia, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, GA and Mr. Mr. HAPS Bhatia, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 06.08.2026 1. This petition is directed against order dated 29.07.2019 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the services of the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Naib Tehsildar to the post of Clerk. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would make sole submission that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. So far the plea of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him is concerned, in this regard the respondents have stated in Para-15 of their return as under: “15. That, so far as the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is concerned, in this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the appointment which is illegal and contrary to law from its inception does not confer any indefensible right on the appointee and the same can, at any point of time, be cancelled when the anomaly illegality /mistake in giving the appointment is pointed out. In the instant case, since there is circular dated 15/06/1995 thereby extending 10% relaxation in selection and appointment of ST and SC category in government employment which was not taken care of at the time of issuance of advertisement and appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar and when such relaxation came to the notice of the answering respondents that too after issuance of appointment orders appointing number of candidates on the post of Naib Tahsidlar, the appropriate steps for removing the said mistake and further for extending 10% relaxation have been taken by the answering respondents and a decision to revise the merit list prepared earlier was taken and accordingly the revised merit list has been prepared and since after extending 10% relaxation in the marks obtained in the written examination, Miss Bisahin Chauhan became eligible and more meritorious than the petitioner and accordingly the appointment order of the petitioner has been cancelled and he has been sent back to the post of Clerk vide order impugned dated 29/07/2019 (Annexure P/1) which is just, proper and legal and in the facts given herein above and in 3 the circumstances of the case, the issuance of notice does not arise and hence, the contention of the petitioner that, no opportunity of hearing before issuance of impugned order has been given to him, is not tenable and deserves to be rejected outrightly.” 6. A careful perusal of the above quoted para would show that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing impugned order dt. 29.07.2019 and, in that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 29.07.2019 is hereby set aside. However, the respondents authority is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if they wishes to do so. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extend indicated hereinabove. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if