Ranu Sinha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chief Conservator Of Forest, Working Plan Circle Bilaspur, Bhakta Kanwar Ram Marg, Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Divisional Forest Officer, Working Plan Circle Bilaspur, Bhakta Kanwar Ram Marg, Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Lok Ayog, Through Secretary, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

2

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. A.G.

¶17

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶18

12.06.2025

¶19

1. The instant writ petition is directed against the order impugned dated 27/02/2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 3 by which petitioner, who was working on the post of Data Entry Operator, has been removed from service on the ground that she did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of having technical qualification from an institution recognized by the Government of Chhattisgarh.

¶20

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator vide order dated 28/02/2014 (Annexure P/3) after being found eligible and meritorious in the due selection procedure but on 18/08/2015, petitioner’s order of removal from service was issued by respondent No. 3 stating that in Lok Ayog Inquiry Case No. 187/2014, petitioner’s appointment was found to be irregular, however, since the said order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it was withdrawn vide order dated 19/08/2015 (Annexure P/4) and a show cause notice was issued

¶21

3

¶22

against her on 21/08/2015 (Annexure P/5) to which the petitioner replied vide Annexure P/8. Thereafter, again on 03/09/2015, respondent No. 3 specifically asked the petitioner to submit the certificate regarding recognition of the institution from where she had obtained her Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application to which the petitioner again filed her reply vide Annexure P/9 but ultimately, petitioner’s order of termination was passed by respondent No. 3 on 27/02/2016 (Annexure P/1) and she was removed from service finding that the institution i.e. NAC-MIT (study centre Raipur) from where petitioner had obtained her diploma certificate was not recognized by the Government of Chhattisgarh as well as from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

¶23

3. Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that petitioner possessed the required educational qualification and was appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator after having gone through the due selection procedure and the entire action by the respondents in passing the impugned order is malafide as originally, petitioner’s order of removal from service was passed without giving affording her reasonable opportunity of hearing and it was later withdrawn but ultimately, she was terminated by the impugned order which goes to show that

¶24

4

¶25

the respondents had already made their mind and the procedure of conducting inquiry was a mere formality, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and others 1 to buttress his submission.

¶26

4. Per contra, Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents/State, would support the impugned order and submit that petitioner had obtained her Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from NAC-MIT (study centre Raipur) which is not an institution recognized by the State of Chhattisgarh and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) as per Annexure R/1, as such, since the petitioner failed to meet the eligibility criteria for the post of Data Entry Operator as per the advertisement (Annexure P/2), she was removed from service by the order impugned, that too, after giving her reasonable opportunity of hearing, therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

1 (2020) 12 SCC 426

¶28

5

¶29

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶30

6. It is evident from the record that, as per the advertisement (Annexure P/2), the educational qualification required for selection on the post of Data Entry Operator is as follows :-

¶31

(i) the candidate should have passed 10+2 examination from a recognized education board; or old higher secondary passing certificate along with first year of graduation certificate in any subject from a recognized university; or class 10^th passing certificate along with a three year diploma in any subject from a recognized institution.

¶32

(ii) the candidate should have obtained one year diploma of data entry operator/programming from a recognized institution and should have a speed of 8,000 key depressions per hour in Hindi and English (skill test will be conducted separately for speed).

¶33

7. In the instant case, though the petitioner had qualified the written test as well as the skill test and had been appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator but on a complaint being made, inquiry was conducted and it was found that petitioner had obtained her diploma from NACMIT (study centre Raipur) which is not an institution recognized by the State of Chhattisgarh and the All India

¶34

6

¶35

Council for Technical Education (AICTE). Pursuant thereof, time was granted to the petitioner to file reply but she could not satisfy the respondents and thereafter, another opportunity was also given to her wherein she was specifically asked to submit the certificate regarding recognition of the institution from where she had obtained her diploma, but she failed to submit such certificate. It is also pertinent to note here that the respondents/State have filed their reply and annexed along with it is a list of institutions which are duly recognized by the University Grant Commission (Annexure R/1) and NAC-MIT, i.e. the institution from where the petitioner had obtained her diploma, is not included in the said list. As such, since petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, her service has been dispensed with by order dated 27/02/2016 (Annexure P/1).

¶36

8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal discussion, it can safely be concluded that the impugned termination order dated 27/02/2016 (Annexure P/1) is absolutely in accordance with law and it is not stigmatic and also does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The respondents have recorded a pure and simple finding that since the petitioner has failed to meet the eligibility criteria and she does not possess diploma certificate of data entry

¶37

7

¶38

operator/programming from a recognized institution, she has been terminated from service. It is pertinent to mention here that the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable in the present case. I do not find any good ground warranting interference in the impugned order.

¶39

9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶40

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶41

Harneet

Ranu Sinha v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranu Sinha v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatashankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nilesh Kumar Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Abdul Naim Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Sarita Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

General Manager (Mp) Vs Vikrant Kumar Lal

M/S Landmark Engineer Vs State of Chhattisgarh