Santosh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:35140

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 268 of 2023

¶6

1 - Santosh Kumar Prajapati S/o Shri Rajaram Prajapati Aged About 55 Years Working As Principal And Posted At Govt. Shringi Rishi Excellent English Medium School Nagri District Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Raipur, District Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Collector District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Dinesh Kumar Khatri Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondry School Sankra (Nagri) District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

(22.07.2025)

¶18

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following

¶19

2

¶20

relief(s) :-

¶21

“ (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioner's case, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. ”

¶22

Facts of the present case, in brevity, are that the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Atmanand School on deputation, with the appointment order dated 12.04.2022 and posting order dated 26.04.2022, both annexed. The deputation was for a fixed term of four years, and as per the State Government’s policy dated 25.02.2021, any cancellation or return of service to the original department requires prior consent of the State Government. Despite this, the Collector, who lacks authority, issued an impugned order dated 27.12.2022 attaching the petitioner to Government Higher Secondary School Dugli, violating the deputation terms and without the necessary consent. This order contravenes the deputation policy and circulars dated 04.06.2021 and 14.07.2014, which expressly prohibit attachments without cancellation and provide for disciplinary action if violated. The petitioner’s representation against this order remains unheeded. Hence this petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working efficiently and diligently, however, by the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) the petitioner was abruptly attached to the Government Higher Secondary School, Dugli, without obtaining the prior consent of the State Government. This order is in direct

¶24

3

¶25

contravention of the terms of the petitioner’s appointment and the established policy of the State Government, which clearly stipulates that deputation shall be for a fixed period of four years, and any modification to such deputation requires prior approval. Contrary to this mandate, the impugned order was issued without such consent or due procedure. Furthermore, there exists a complete prohibition on attachment, and it has been explicitly directed that any attachment made in violation of this prohibition must be rescinded immediately, failing which disciplinary action is warranted. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of the petitioner’s rights and the prescribed governmental policies and liable to be quashed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) attaching the petitioner to the Government Higher Secondary School, Dugli, is both lawful and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent denies that the attachment was made without proper authority or in violation of any applicable policy. The order was necessitated by administrative exigencies and was passed in accordance with the provisions and discretionary powers vested in the competent authority under the relevant rules and policies. Further, the submission that prior consent of the State Government was mandatory is misconceived, as the competent authority is empowered to effect such attachments to ensure smooth functioning of the educational institutions and optimal deployment of staff. The alleged prohibition on attachment is subject to exceptions duly recognized and applied in the present case. Therefore,

¶27

4

¶28

the impugned order is neither arbitrary nor illegal but is a bona fide administrative action taken in public interest and does not infringe upon any legal or contractual rights of the petitioner. Consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

In the light of the above, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. It infringes upon the petitioner’s rights and violates the established government policies. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed . The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner to the original deputation post at Atmanand School and to consider the petitioner’s service without prejudice.

¶31