1 CGHC010101932017 2026:CGHC:36005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1304 of 2017  Sandeep Roy S/o Bishwanath Roy, Aged About 39 Years Presently Working As State Programme Manager H R. And Admin., State Rural Livelihood Mission, Raipur, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, Residing At Flat No. 403, Block 2- B, Sai Simran Apartment, Mahavir Nagar, Purana Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Vice Chairman, State Rural Livelihood Mission, Raipur, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Mission Director, State Rural Livelihood Mission, Raipur, Office Of The Development Commissioner, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1305 of 2017  Elwin Ritesh Dayal S/o Late Clement Dayal, Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As State Programme Manager M And E, State Rural Livelihood Mission, Raipur, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, Residing At St. Joseph Town Shiv Vihar, House No. 1, Lane No. 5, Amlidih Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2. Vice Chairman, State Rural Livelihood Mission, Raipur, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Mission Director, State Rural Livelihood Mission, Raipur, Office Of The SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.17 18:01:17 +0530 2 Development Commissioner, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Aadarsh Rajput, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. R.S. Baghel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2017 (Annexure P/1) and allow the petitioner to work in the same post. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned advertisement and further allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process declaring the petitioner eligible to the post for which the petitioner is qualified. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioners were appointed to the post of State Programme Manager under the respondent No. 3 on contract basis vide order dated 23.04.2012. He would contend that services of the petitioners were terminated after service of one month notice with effect from 17.02.2017. It is contended by Mr. Jayant that the Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs) of petitioners for year 2016-17 were not found up to mark, and therefore, decision was taken to terminate the services. He would contend that in subsequent advertisement, the petitioners are not being permitted to participate on the ground that their services were terminated. He would 3 contend that there is no allegation of any kind of misconduct against the petitioners, and therefore, the conditions enumerated in subsequent advertisements are bad in law. He would argue that services of the petitioners were terminated simplicitor after service of one month notice, therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider their candidature along with other eligible candidates. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 would argue that the PARs of the petitioners of year 2016-17 were not found up to benchmark, therefore, their services were terminated. He would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer would support the contention made by Mr. Aadarsh Rajput, Advocate. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Perusal of order of termination of service would make it clear that those orders are neither punitive nor stigmatic in nature. In the return, it is pleaded that the PARs of the petitioners for particular period were not up to benchmark, and therefore, their services were discontinued. In the order of removal, there is no allegation of any misconduct, and therefore, de-barring candidates removed from service from future recruitment process appears to be illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioners against the posts of State Programme Manager, HR & Admin and State Programme Manager (M&E), if occasion arises. 4 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant