1 2026:CGHC:19644 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3301 of 2021 Samvedna Seva Vikas Samiti, Ambikapur Through Its Secretary, Amrit Lal Sharma S/o Shri Akshay Lal Sharma Aged About 35 Years, Office D.C Road, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Labour Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Anushka Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Varunendra Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 28.4.2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging order dated 30.7.2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 2,40,000/- in the account of the Labour Department. 2. Facts of the case, in brief are that, the petitioner is a registered group under the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act. It is engaged in providing BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.04.29 14:32:22 +0530 2 skill based training to the persons in various fields like driving, basic automotive services, masonry, plumbing, mechanical work etc. The petitioner was authorized by the respondents to impart training to the candidates under the Mukhyamantri Koushal Vikas Yojna (CSSDA Portal). Thereafter during the year 2015-16, the petitioner imparted training to the candidates as per the list provided by the Chhattisgarh State Skill Development Authority (CSSDA). After lapse of 05 years, respondent No.2 issued impugned order dated 30.7.2021 (Annexure-P/1), alleging that out of the beneficiaries trained by the petitioner, 10 were below the age of 18 years, 05 were above the age of 50 years and one person namely Sandeep Kumar was mentioned twice in the list. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- towards the fee and charges allegedly incurred by the State in respect of said 14 beneficiaries. Therefore, the petitioner has been directed to refund the said amount within seven days, which has given rise to filing of instant petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that list of trainees was supplied by the Chhattisgarh State Skill Development Portal (a portal run by the State). It is contended that the petitioner group has no right to select or reject the candidates assigned for training, therefore, if any candidate was found to be underage or overage, then it was the mistake committed by the officials of the CSSDA, and no liability can be fastened upon the petitioner for such mistake committed the officials of the CSSDA. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and impugned order dated 30.7.2021 (Annexure-P/1) be quashed. 4. The State has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State while referring to its reply would submit that the petitioner imparted training to the candidates in various streams under the Labour Department, Mungeli and 3 after the completion of the training programme, they submitted bills for payment. He further submits that the petitioner provided said training to various candidates who were underage or overage persons, which was in contravention of the scheme. When irregularity committed by the petitioner came into the knowledge of the respondent authority, a show cause notice dated 20.10.2020 was served to the petitioner detailing all the allegations, however, the petitioner failed to submit any reply. Therefore, impugned Order (Annexure-P/1) has been passed directing to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-, being the amount allegedly received for imparting training to ineligible persons. He further submits that the petitioner itself has admitted that they have deposited Rs.18,000/- accepting that name of Sandeep Kumar was entered twice. He further submits that since the petitioner received huge amount for imparting training to ineligible persons under the scheme, therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner has filed certain lists (Annexure-P/6) issued by CSSDA Portal showing the name of the trainees/candidates. It has been mentioned by the petitioner that the list of trainees were supplied by CSSDA Portal run by the authority. But the respondents have not controverted aforesaid contention of the petitioner. The respondents have also not filed any document to demonstrate the fact that in the work order issued by the petitioner, it was instructed that said training shall not be provided to the candidates below 18 years of age or above 50 years in a particular stream. The respondents have also neither pleaded nor filed any document to establish that the petitioner had any authority to select or reject the candidates assigned for training. Since the list of trainees/candidates were 4 provided by the CSSDA, then it was duty of the petitioner to provide training to the persons listed in the portal. It is pertinent to mention here that, in Order dated 30.7.2021 (Annexure-P/1) respondent No.2 itself has admitted that due to clerical mistake of the office, ineligible beneficiaries had been selected for training. This fact also show that the petitioner had no right to select or reject the beneficiaries, rather the petitioner was duty bound to impart training to the candidates as per the list provided by the CSSDA. 7. In view of the above discussion, and particularly in the light of mistake committed by the office of the respondents in including the name of ineligible candidates in the list, the liability to impart training to the those ineligible candidates cannot be fastened upon the petitioner. Despite that, instead of initiating action against the erring officials responsible for the said mistake, the respondents have imposed liability upon the petitioner by directing it to deposit a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- on account of imparting training to the allegedly ineligible candidates. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order dated 30.7.2021 (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.2 is found to be unsustainable in law and the same is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini