1 CGHC010286332024 2026:CGHC:41798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5174 of 2024 Shakuntala Chouhan W/o. Shri Ramdayal Chouhan Aged About 44 Years R/o. Krishnapur, Urdana Marg, Ward No. 46, Raigarh, Police Station - Kotra Road, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Health Resource Center Chhattisgarh Through- The Executive Director, State Health Resource Center Chhattisgarh, State Health Training Center Building, Kalibadi, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Senior Program Coordinator State Health Resource Center Chhattisgarh, State Health Training Center Building, Kalibadi, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.09.26 11:25:20 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Mitanin Trainer under the Mitanin Programme. He submits that vide impugned order dated 26.03.2015 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner was removed from the post of Mitanin. It is argued that the respondents have not followed the procedure described in circular for recruitment and removal of Mitanins issued by the State of Chhattisgarh Health & Family Welfare Department, Raipur dated 24.9.2011. It is also argued that no report was submitted by the Committee of five- members and decision with regard to removal has not been taken by majority, therefore, the order is bad in law. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. He would contend that a show-cause notice was issued and thereafter, enquiry was conducted but he would fairly submit that the decision was not taken by the five-member Committee to remove the petitioner, according to scheme. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 3 4. The procedure with regard to removal of Mitanin is described in Circular dated 24.9.2011 and same is reproduced herein below: " मितानि प्रशि क्षक क परिवता - यदि खण्ड शिनिकत्सा अमिक अथव जिला सान्वयक क" आं$कला अ%सा निकसा मितानि प्रशि क्षक क कय सा$ता&षक हीं) हीं* ता& उसा प्ररिवक क" कय, क- निवस्ता/ता साक्ष जिला सान्वयक द्वा इ दि नि2 3 4 5 गई अप"क्षिक्षता कय, क- सा9, शिसाक कयय& शिसाक प्रनिताव" व : प्रनिताव" क" आं प क- व"ग। इसा साक्ष क" आं प प्रशि क्षक क& अप" कय 4 सा% ला" हीं"ता% एक ' हीं क साय दिय साकता हीं*। एक हीं पश्चाता> प्रशि क्षक क" कय क- प%? सा क जिला सान्वयक प्रशि क्षक क& कय सा" प/थक क" अथव ख" क- अ% $सा निवस्ता/ता बण निडता खण्ड शिनिकत्सा अमिक क- अध्यक्षता 4 गनिवता प$ सास्य3 क- सामिनिता क& प्र"निषता क4ग"। मितानि प्रशि क्षक द्वा निकसा प्रक क- ग$भी अनियमिताता अथव कयक्र क" उद्दे"श्य3 व निवपता आंण/ कय निकय" " प भी जिला सान्वयक सा$ब$मिता प्रकण क- $ क प्रनिताव" उप&क्ता सामिनिता क& प्रस्ता%ता क4ग" व इसाक- प्रनिता जिला &डला अमिक व ज्य स्वस्थ्य सा$सा क" न्द्र क& उपलाब्ध कय4ग"। सामिनिता उप&क्ता%सा प्रप्ता साक्ष /$ प्रनिताव" क" आं प सा$ब$मिता प्रशि क्षक क& कय सा" प/थक क" क" सा$ब$ 4 निणय ला"ग। निणय क" हीं"ता% सामिनिता क" न्य9ता ता सास्य साहींता हीं&" निहींए। ज्य स्वस्थ्य सा$सा क" न्द्र अथव सा$लालाय, स्वस्थ्य सा"वए$ द्वा आंवश्यकता%सा प्रकण3 क- ज्य स्ता सा" $ कवक सा$ब$मिता प्रशि क्षक क& कय सा" प/थक क" क" सा$ब$ 4 य सामिनिता क& अ% ण क- साकता हीं*। इसा प्रक ज्य स्ता सा" क- गई अ% $सा अ%सा सा$ब$मिता 4 सामिनिता द्वा निणय शिलाय हीं&ग एव$ %ख्य शिनिकत्सा एव$ स्वस्थ्य अमिक द्वा इसाक- निग क- हीं&ग।" 5. From perusal of the above provision, it is quite vivid that if the work of Mitanin is not satisfactory, reports would be submitted by the Committee of five-member presided over by the Block Medical and Health Officer. After submission of report, a separate decision will be taken and there should be concurrence of at least three- members out of five-members with regard to removal. 6. In the present case, the orders of removal has been passed by the respondent No.3 alone, therefore, the order is contrary to the scheme dated 24.9.2011. Accordingly, the order dated 26.03.2015 is hereby quashed. 7. The petitioner would be at liberty to make representation before the Competent Authority for payment of arrears of salary. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of circular dated 24.9.2011, if so advised. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar