Lorani Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Panchayat And Rural Developement, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Collector Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Block Education Officer Block - Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Shri Bishnu Muni, Advocate For Respondent / State : Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, Dy.G.A. For respondent No.4 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate

¶15

({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

12/09/2024

¶18

The unfortunate petitioner is running from pillar to post for the last 10 years

¶19

2 / 6

¶20

seeking relief of re-instatement of her services on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – III.

¶21

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha karmi Grade -III on compassionate ground. It is also reflected from the pleadings that after completion of two years of probation, the petitioner was regularised in service. It emerges from the fact that an enquiry was conducted with regard to genuineness of Class XII mark sheet of the petitioner which the petitioner submitted for seeking employment. Upon enquiry, the said mark sheet was said to be forged ultimately resulting into termination of the petitioner on 20/11/2014. Though termination order has not been filed by the petitioner however, the same is placed on record with the reply of respondent No.4. (Annexure R-4 / 5), the recital of which is quoted herein below -

¶22

fodkl [k.M f’k{kk vf/kdkjh [kjfl;k] ftyk jk;x<+ ds i= dzekad@1739@f’k{kk@!2014&15 [kjfl;k fnukad 12-11-2014 ds }kjk Jherh yksjkuh iVsy lgk;d f’k{kd (iapk;r) izk-’kk-jruegdk ds vad lwph tkap esa QthZ izek.k i= Ikk;s tkus ds dkj.k Jherh yksjkuh iVsy lgk-f’k- (iapk;r) izk-’kk- jruegdk dh lsok lekfIr dh tkrh gSA

¶23

Challenging the impugned order, the petitioner filed WPS No.427/2015 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 11/02/2015 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal. Thereafter, the said order was put to challenge before the Collector, Raigarh, C.G. who vide its order dated 24/08/2015 directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kharsiya to seek guide lines from the Government and to verify the mark sheet of the petitioner from the official web site of the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education and thereafter, pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It appears that no such enquiry was conducted by the respondents. It appears that some correspondence were made by the respondent / CEO with the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education but ultimately, nothing fruitful happened.

¶24

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.3104/2016 which was disposed off vide order dated 16/02/2022 whereby this Court directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kharsiya to decide the dispute within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. It appears that a contempt case

¶25

3 / 6

¶26

bearing Cont. No.1104/2022 was also filed as the earlier order was not complied with, however, the same was disposed off vide order dated 07/07/2023. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to make additional representation. Records further reflect that an order was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Raigarh dated 10/10/2022 which indicates that Class V, Class VIII and Class X mark sheets of the petitioner are genuine. It further reflects that the petitioner passed Higher Secondary examination in the year 2007 as a regular student which is a forged mark sheet. The reasons assigned in the order are that the petitioner passed class XI examination with Economics, Political Science and Geography whereas she passed the class XII examination with the subject Physics, Chemistry and Biology. As there was no provision to appear in the said subject for those students who have passed the Class XI examination in Arts Subject therefore, Class XII mark sheet was found to be forged. Another reason which was assigned is that the petitioner passed the class X examination in the year 1995 as a private student and after 12 years i.e. in the year 2007, she passed class XII examination as regular student and there is no provision to appear in Class XII examination after 12 years at the age of 30 as a regular student. Further reason assigned is that the petitioner passed Class XII examination from Vivekanand Higher Secondary School, Navgava in the year 2007 whereas the said school was a private institution and is said to have been closed in the year 2007 itself. It has been further stated in the order that the admission register of the said school has been lost. On the basis of above reasons, the Class XII mark sheet of the petitioner was found to be forged.

¶27

The petitioner in this petition has claimed that her representation dated 18/04/2026 (Annexure P/4) may be decided by the authorities. The petitioner has not challenged the order of the Collector or her order of termination. Reply has been filed by the State as well as by the respondent No.4 justifying their stand as to why termination of the petitioner was well founded. Documents have been filed with regard to issuance of notice conducting an enquiry with regard to genuineness of Class XII mark sheet of the petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s mark sheet is genuine and her termination order is bad in law.

¶29

4 / 6

¶30

7. Learned counsel for respective respondents support the pleadings made in their respective returns.

¶31

The core issue involved in this petition is as to whether termination of the petitioner can stand in the scrutiny of this Court or based upon legal grounds or not. This is a very unfortunate case that a vague pleading has been made by the petitioner in this writ petition. On over all perusal of the pleadings including the writ petition and the return filed by the respondents, this Court deems it proper to see that justice is done to the petitioner.

¶32

The reasons for termination of the services of the petitioner is that she has given forged mark sheet of class XII and therefore she does not possess the requisite qualification to be appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. The Collector in its order dated 24/08/2015 directed the Chief Executive Officer, Kharsiya to conduct an enquiry with regard to genuineness of Class XII mark sheet. Though some documents have been annexed demanding clarification from the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, however, in the absence of such clarification, the Chief Executive Officer did not revoke the termination order and after some time the case of the petitioner was kept in cold bags. The petitioner filed writ petitions and contempt petition however, no substantive relief could be granted. The petitioner in this petition only prayed that her representation may be directed to be decided.

¶33

This Court considering the controversy involved in this writ petition, on 12/03/2024 called report from the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education. A report has been received from the Board. The relevant part / details of the mark sheet which was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent authority is reproduced as below -

¶34

dsaæ	LakLFkk	iath;u @ ukekadu dza	fu;fer @ Lok/;k;h	vuqdzekad
dzekad	dzekad
Centre No.	School No.	Registration / Enrollment No.	Regular / Private	Roll Number
24105	242185	C05/251065/005	Regular	24714625

¶35

These details could not be disputed by the respondents and the verification report from the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education it is apparent that Class

¶36

5 / 6

¶37

XII mark sheet was genuine. The exercise which this Court has done was required to be done by the respondent / CEO in compliance of the order of the Collector but he failed to do so. No other reason has been assigned for terminating the petitioner from service. Where it is writ large on the basis of report submitted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal that the mark sheets of Class XII submitted by the petitioner was genuine, the said reason has no legs to stand. Though no relief has been claimed by the petitioner to quash the termination order, this Court has to see that complete justice is done to the petitioner and in absence of proper legal advise and filing such petition without appropriate relief, her legitimate rights cannot be curtailed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Sudakar v. V. Manoharan and ors., (2011) 1 SCC 484 in paragraph 14 has held as under -

¶38

“14. The power to mould relief is always available to the Court possessed with the power to issue high prerogative writs. In order to do complete justice it can mould the relief, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts of a given case a writ petitioner may not be entitled to the specific relief claimed by him but this itself will not preclude the Writ Court to grant such other relief which he is otherwise entitled. Further delay and latches does not bar the jurisdiction of the Court. It is a matter of discretion and not of jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge had taken note of the relevant facts and declined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches.”

¶39

In this context, some observations made in paragraph 23 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi V. Union of India & ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749 deserves to be pointed out and is reproduced as under -

¶40

“23. It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction. I would say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every court, not to speak of a court of

¶41

6 / 6

¶42

plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. Of course, this power is not as wide which this Court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter.”

¶43

The facts which are surprisingly admitted that the Class XII mark sheet of the petitioner was genuine one and simply because relief of setting aside termination order has not been claimed, this cannot be a silent spectator denying the legitimate relief to the petitioner.

¶44

Hence, this Court passes the following order -

¶45

The termination order of the petitioner dated 20/11/2014 is illegal and without any foundation, therefore, the same is hereby set aside. The petitioner is reinstated in service. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled for 50% of back wages. The period for which the petitioner remained terminated shall be counted as continuation of her service. The above exercise shall be done within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

¶46

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed off. No cost.

¶47

({Sachin Singh Rajput )

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Deepti

¶50

Digitally signed by DEEPTI DEEPTI HARIKUMAR HARIKUMAR Date: 2024.09.20 10:39:15 +0530

Lorani Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lorani Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Singh Bais Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamal Kishore Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Marry Martha Thomas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kiran Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Basant Shahjeet @ Basant Kumar Kahar Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd.

Lakhan Lal Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh