1 CGHC010355582026 2026:CGHC:40385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6788 of 2026 1 - Shivprasad Yadav S/o Nanduram Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Sanwa- Rawan, Post Baijnathpur, P.S. Odgi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer, Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - The Headmaster, Government Primary School Sanwa- Rawan, Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 7 - Deepak Kumar Singh S/o Sampat Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sanwa- Rawan, Post Baijnathpur, P.S. Odgi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Singh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 16/09/2026 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.09.18 17:50:19 +0530 2 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature quashing the impugned Order dated 25.06.2026 (ANNEXURE-P/1) issued by Respondent No 4 directing the respondents, 1 to 6 to immediately comply with the DEO's Order dated 09.04.2026 and BEO's Order dated 16.04.2026 and permit the petitioner to resume his duties as Part-Time Sweeper at Government Primary School, Sanwa-Rawan with all consequential and monetary benefits whatsoever. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 1 to 6 for the removal of Respondent No. 7 from the said post to facilitate the joining/reinstatement of the petitioner within stipulated time. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief to the petitioner as may be deemed fit and proper, in the interest of justice, including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper as per the State Circular dated 08/03/2011 at Government primary School Sanwa-Rawan vide appointment order dated 30/04/2011, issued by the respondent No.6/Headmaster. Learned counsel submits that due to a false criminal case, the petitioner remained in jail from 22/05/2022 to 24/12/2025 and after conclusion of trial, he was acquitted of all the charges vide 3 judgment dated 24/12/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Koriya (Baikunthpur). Thereafter, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities for resuming his duties and DEO & BEO ordered for his reinstatement in service. However, the School Management Committee were not allowing the petitioner to resume his charges on the ground that they have temporarily engaged one Deepak Kumar Singh in his place. Earlier, the petitioner filed WPS No. 4593/2026 and vide order dated 07/08/2026, the same was dismissed as infructuous by observing that the respondents placed the impugned order of cancellation of reinstatement dated 25/06/2026 and the liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate authority. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the School authorities in defying the orders of the DEO and BEO is highly illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order mentions that during the imprisonment of the petitioner one Deepak Kumar Singh has been engaged to perform the duty of sweeper in place of petitioner therefore he cannot be reinstated. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was engaged purely as a Part-Time Sweeper on a temporary basis pursuant to the Circular dated 08.03.2011 and does not hold any substantive post. The orders 4 of the DEO and BEO, if any, were merely recommendatory in nature and not binding upon the School Management Committee, which is competent to take a decision as per local requirement. The engagement of Deepak Kumar Singh was made due to exigency of work during the long incarceration of the petitioner from 22.05.2022 to 24.12.2025 and no vested right accrues in favour of the petitioner to claim reinstatement in service. Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement cannot be accepted merely on the basis of his acquittal. It is submitted that the petitioner remained in custody for a prolonged period and during that period, he was not in a position to discharge his duties as a Part-Time Sweeper. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the partied, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a Part- Time Sweeper pursuant to the State Circular dated 08.03.2011 and was posted at Government Primary School, Sanwa- Rawan. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner remained in custody from 22.05.2022 to 24.12.2025 and, during the said period, was admittedly unable to discharge his duties. During his prolonged absence, the School Management Committee, having regard to the exigency of work, engaged one Deepak Kumar Singh on a temporary basis. 5 6. The mere fact that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted of the criminal charges, by itself, does not confer upon him a right to seek reinstatement to a temporary or part-time engagement, particularly when the petitioner admittedly remained unavailable for performing the duties for a considerable period. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, who was engaged only as a Part-Time Sweeper on a temporary basis, was in custody for a long period in connection with the criminal charges levelled against him, during which period one Deepak Kumar Singh/respondent No. 7 was engaged in his place. The petitioner, therefore, has no vested right to claim reinstatement merely on the ground of his subsequent acquittal. 8. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out; no direction as sought by the petitioner can be made towards the respondents and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep