Sarita Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:16792

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1155 of 2021

¶7

1 - Sarita Mishra D/o Late Gangaprasad Mishra Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 9/a, Sector 02, Street No. 03, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - General Administration Department Through Its Secretary Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Commissioner Health Services G.E. Road Opposite Tahsil Office Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Director Health Services, Raipur Division Indrawati Bhawan , 3rd Floor, Block 1, New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

2

¶15

5 - Sangita Sahu Working As Personal Assistant Office Of Directorate Of Health Services , Block I, Iiird Floor , Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioner :- Mr. Harshmander Rastrogi & Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocates For State :- Mrs. Akansha Verma Dhabedkar, P.L.

¶19

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order On Board

¶21

13.04.2026

¶22

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo-warranto against the private respondent, namely Sangita Sahu, questioning her appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade-III and her subsequent promotion to the post of Personal Assistant in the office of Directorate of Health Services, Raipur. It is alleged that the appointment was made illegally by granting relaxation in the prescribed educational and technical qualifications, and therefore the private respondent is not entitled to hold the said posts.

¶23

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the private respondent was appointed pursuant to an advertisement dated 14.05.2012. According to the petitioner, the said advertisement prescribed qualifications akin to that of a Steno-Typist, whereas the

¶24

3

¶25

appointment was made on the post of Stenographer Grade-III, which requires higher qualifications as per the circular dated 28.11.2011 issued by the General Administration Department. It is contended that the private respondent did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Stenographer and yet was appointed and later promoted to the post of Personal Assistant. It is further the case of the petitioner that representations were made before the authorities highlighting the alleged irregularities in the recruitment process, and certain communications between departmental authorities also indicated procedural lapses. However, no effective action was taken, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present petition.

¶26

Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:-

¶27

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of quowarranto and oust the private respondent Sangita Sahu on the post of Stenographer Grade-III/ Personal Assistant, from the office of Directorate of Health Services Raipur (C.G.).

¶28

10.2 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the private respondent is ex facie illegal as she did not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Stenographer

¶30

4

¶31

Grade-III. It is contended that the advertisement itself suffered from irregularity by prescribing qualifications of a Steno-Typist, which is a lower post, and the private respondent was wrongly appointed to a higher post carrying a higher pay scale. It is further submitted that such illegal appointment cannot be protected in law and is amenable to challenge by way of a writ of quo-warranto. It is also contended that the subsequent promotion granted to the private respondent is equally illegal, being founded on an invalid initial appointment. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Suprem Court in the matter of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and others (2014) 1 SCC 161.

¶32

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petition is misconceived and not maintainable. It is contended that the appointment of the private respondent was made pursuant to a duly issued advertisement and selection process, and any alleged irregularity in the advertisement cannot be a ground to unsettle an appointment made long back in the year 2012. It is further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay and has no locus standi to challenge the appointment at this belated stage.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

5

¶35

After considering the submissions of both sides and the record, this Court finds that the private respondent was appointed in the year 2012 through a proper advertisement issued by the competent authority. Even if there was some mistake in the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement, it does not automatically make the appointment illegal, especially when the appointment has become final and the respondent has been working on the post for many years.

¶36

A writ of quo-warranto can be issued only when the appointment is clearly against the law and the person does not have the required eligibility. In the present case, no such clear illegality has been shown. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly about irregularities in the selection process, which cannot be examined in such a petition after a long time. Moreover, the petitioner has filed this case after a long delay without giving any proper reason. Entertaining such old claims would disturb settled positions in service, which is not proper under writ jurisdiction.

¶37

In view of the above, this Court finds that no interference is required. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

¶38

sd/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶40

Vishakha

Sarita Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Sarita Mishra 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

Thandaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Bada Vs the State of Chhattisgarh.

Mohd. Dilsad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sato Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankit Dani Vs State of Chhattisgarh