1 CGHC010240772026 2026:CGHC:37764-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 777 of 2026 1 - The Principal Rajkumar College G.E. Road, College Ward, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajkumar College Society A Society Deemed To Be Registered Under The C.G. Registrikaran Adhiniyam, Through Secretary, College Ward, G.E. Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus Mrs. Savita Mohanty W/o Shri K.M. Mohanty Executive Director, Kanger Vally Academy, Dumar Talab Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 24/08/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 2 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. On due consideration, I.A. No. 2 of 2026 VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.25 22:17:38 +0530 2 is allowed and delay of 50 days in filing the present writ appeal is condoned. 2. The present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants/petitioners, namely, the Principal, Rajkumar College and Rajkumar College Society, under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, calling in question the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.134/2012, whereby the writ petition challenging the order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority under the M.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1958, directing reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages and interest, has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, the respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher to teach Oriya language at Rajkumar College, Raipur, vide appointment order dated 21.06.1990, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein, including obtaining the requisite B.Ed. qualification. Despite repeated reminders, she did not acquire the said qualification. Consequently, her services were terminated vide order dated 19.06.2008, citing the meager strength of students opting for Oriya subject as well as her failure to pursue the B.Ed. course, which precluded her employment as a teacher for other subjects. 4. Aggrieved by her termination, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 58 of the M.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1958, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.05.2012, directing her reinstatement with full back wages and compound interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The appellants challenged the said order 3 before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.134/2012; however, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2026. Hence, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in upholding the order of the Appellate Authority. It is contended that the respondent’s appointment was subject to the condition of acquiring the requisite B.Ed. qualification and that, despite repeated reminders, she failed to obtain the same. Her services were therefore rightly terminated, particularly when the strength of students opting for Oriya subject had become extremely meager. It is further submitted that the respondent was required to comply with the applicable affiliation guidelines and the rules of the College, and the appellants could not have continued her engagement as a teacher without the requisite qualification. Learned counsel would further submit that the Appellate Authority erred in directing reinstatement with full back wages and compound interest @ 9% per annum without considering the respondent’s gainful employment or there being any statutory basis for awarding compound interest. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Appellate Authority. It would be submitted that the respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1990 and had continued in service for nearly eighteen years, and that the alleged requirement of acquiring a B.Ed. qualification was not an absolute condition for her appointment. It is contended that the very order of appointment contemplated her continuation until she completed her B.Ed., and therefore the learned 4 Single Judge has rightly held that acquisition of the said qualification could not be treated as a mandatory pre-condition for appointment. Learned counsel would further submit that the termination was unjustified and that the Appellate Authority, after considering the matter, rightly directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present writ appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. 8. The learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that the respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 21.06.1990 and was subsequently confirmed in service and extended the benefit of increments. It is also not in dispute that her services were discontinued vide order dated 19.06.2008, wherein the reason specifically assigned was the extremely meager strength of students opting for Oriya subject. Thus, the termination order itself does not indicate that the respondent was terminated solely on account of her failure to acquire the B.Ed. qualification. The learned Single Judge has further rightly taken note of the fact that the respondent's services had been confirmed by the management in 1994 without any objection regarding non-acquisition of the B.Ed. Qualification. 9. We find no infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that, having regard to the language employed in the appointment order dated 21.06.1990, the acquisition of B.Ed. qualification was not made a mandatory pre-condition for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. The word “until” occurring in the appointment order has rightly 5 been considered in its context. Further, the Appellate Authority had taken into consideration the subsequent confirmation of the respondent's services and grant of increments and promotion, and thereafter set aside the order of termination. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the entire material, found no good ground to interfere with the said order. We are also of the considered view that the subsequent order of termination dated 10.05.2017, which admittedly was not challenged by the respondent, does not affect the legality of the order under consideration in the present proceedings. 10. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge suffer from any perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest illegality warranting interference in the present intra-court appeal. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is based upon the appointment order, the termination order and the subsequent conduct of the management in confirming the respondent's services and extending service benefits. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present writ appeal. 11. Consequently, the present writ appeal is dismissed. The order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.134/2012 is affirmed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved