Surendra Kumar Behra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1082

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 11772 of 2025

¶6

1 - Ganesh Ram Yadav S/o Shri Murlidhar Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Laxmi Nagar, Post Miriguda, Tehsil Dharmjaigarh, District Raigarh C.G.

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Livestock Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur C.G.

¶10

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Indravati Bhawan, Block No. 03, Ground Floor, Atal Nagar Raipur C.G.

¶11

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District Raigarh C.G.

¶12

4 - Collector District Raigarh C.G.

¶13

--- Respondent(s)

¶14

WPS No. 12394 of 2025

¶15

1 - Virendra Kumar Rathia S/o Late Dhaneshwar Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Saskoba, Tehsil Dharmjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶16

--- Petitioner(s)

¶17

Versus

¶18

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

¶19

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Indravati Bhawan, Block No. 03, Ground Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶20

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶21

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶22

4 - Collector District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

2

¶25

WPS No. 12400 of 2025

¶26

1 - Surendra Kumar Behra S/o Shri Indra Kumar Behra Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Navagaon, Post Bartapali, Tehsil Dharmjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶27

--- Petitioner(s)

¶28

Versus

¶29

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Livestock Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.)

¶30

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Indravati Bhawan, Block No. 03, Ground Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶31

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶32

4 - Collector District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶33

--- Respondent(s)

¶34

WPS No. 12397 of 2025

¶35

1 - Digambar Prasad Rathia S/o Shri Bhaghirathi Rathia Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Tumidih Post Farkhanara, Tehsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶36

--- Petitioner(s)

¶37

Versus

¶38

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

¶39

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Block No. 03, Ground Floor, Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.)

¶40

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶41

4 - Collector District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶42

--- Respondent(s)

¶43

WPS No. 11765 of 2025

¶44

1 - Shridhar Kumar Panda S/o Shri Rantidav Panda Aged About 36 Years R/o Civil Line, Dharmjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶45

--- Petitioner(s)

¶46

versus

¶47

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

¶48

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Indravati Bhawan, Block No. 03, Ground Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶49

3

¶50

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶51

4 - Collector District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶52

--- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, G.A.

¶53

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶54

05/01/2026

¶55

Since petitioners in all the above writ petitions have raised common grounds for consideration by this Court, the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶56

Facts relevant for disposal of these petitions are that an advertisement was issued on 29.02.2012 by Deputy Director, Veterinary Services i.e. respondent No.3 for filling up the post of Swachhkarta/Paricharak Sah Chowkidar. Advertisement issued by respondent No.3 came to be amended and amendment was published on 09.05.2012 mentioning that appointment is to be made based on the written examination. Petitioners participated in due procedure of recruitment formulated by respondent No.3 in the advertisement and got selected. Select list published by respondents department was put to challenge by one of the private candidate by making complaint raising allegation of irregularities committed by authorities in selection process. Collector, Raigarh considering the complaint submitted by private candidate, issued letter to the Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, upon which, respondent No.3 enquired into the matter and submitted report to the Collector. Petitioners were served with show cause notice based on the enquiry report submitted by respondent No.3. Petitioners submitted

¶57

4

¶58

reply to the show cause notice, however without considering the reply to the show cause notice, appointment of petitioners were cancelled and thereafter they preferred writ petition bearing WPS No.4441 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2023 setting aside the order dated 27.09.2012 cancelling appointment of petitioners along with others and directed the authorities to issue fresh show cause notice and to examine case of petitioners therein individually. Respondents-authorities thereafter issued show cause notice on 06.09.2024. Petitioners filed reply and thereafter second show cause notice was issued on 04.10.2024, which was also replied. After submission of reply by petitioners, respondents authorities have passed the order Annexure P-10 dated 08.05.2025 holding the recruitment proceedings to be void and cancelled the appointment of petitioners and other persons appointed pursuant to the recruitment proceedings based on the advertisement dated 29.02.2012, which is put to challenge in these writ petitions.

¶59

Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners have put to challenge the order dated 27.09.2012 canceling appointment of petitioners along with others in WPS No.4441 of 2012 and upon considering the grounds raised in that writ petition, this Court passed an interim order of stay and further directed that petitioners shall be allowed to continue in service. Petitioners thereafter continued in their service till passing of order Annexure P-10 dated 08.05.2025. He also contended that as petitioners have completed about 13 years of service, therefore, they have acquired the status of permanent employee. In the aforementioned facts of the case, if any, action is to be taken against petitioners like removal from service, then

¶60

5

¶61

respondents authorities could have invoked the provisions under Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification and Control) Rules, 1966 by initiating the departmental enquiry against them, which has not been done, therefore, the order Annexure P-10 dated 08.05.2025 is per-se illegal and bad.

¶62

Learned State counsel while opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioners would submit that after passing of an order in the aforementioned writ petition dated 28.04.2023, respondents issued two show cause notices to each of petitioners, to which the petitioners have replied and after considering the reply submitted by petitioners based on the enquiry report, authorities have arrived at a conclusion that at the time of recruitment proceedings, reservation roster has not been followed. Post for scheduled caste candidate women, ex-service men and physically handicapped candidate has not been reserved. He also pointed out that authorities also revealed that in the advertisement only 32 posts were advertised, however 44 candidates were appointed based on the said advertisement, therefore, the order Annexure P-10 is passed following due process of law granting opportunity of hearing to petitioners. There is no merit in these writ petitions. He submits that specific plea is taken in reply that even after petitioners continued in their work pursuant to the interim order, they were not confirmed in their services, therefore, submission of learned counsel for petitioners that order Annexure P-10 is bad in law as petitioners have been removed from service without conducting any departmental enquiry, is not correct.

¶63

6

¶64

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶65

It is not in dispute that earlier petitioners’ appointments were cancelled vide order dated 27.09.2012, whereby appointment of all 44 appointees were cancelled. Said order of cancellation of appointments was put to challenge in WPS No. 4441 of 2012. Writ petition was finally disposed of on 28.04.2023, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has made following observation :-

¶66

“12. The petitioners in order to substantiate their stand have filed copy of orders passed by the Session Court discharging the Evaluators/examinors of the offence against them, who evaulated the answer sheets of the petitioners, and have taken a stand in their defence that no irregularities or manipulations were done in the answer sheets and justified their selection on the aforesaid post. True it is that some irregularities/ manipulations were found by the Enquiry Officer in the selection of the petitioners on the aforesaid post and there appears lack of transparency and non following of reservation policy, more particularly against the 32 advertised posts, 44 appointments were done and the mode of selection was also changed subsequently by way of amended advertisement, but despite the same, the whole select list should not have been cancelled and instead, the candidate, whose selection would have been found to be invalid and illegal, only his/her selection should have been cancelled individually and there might be some candidates who would have been selected genuinely.

¶67

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.09.2012 is liable to be and is hereby set aside. However, keeping in mind the irregularities done in the selection process of

¶68

7

¶69

the petitioners and other selected candidates as well as the conduct of the selection committee, the respondent authorities are directed to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioners and conduct fresh enquiry into the matter and if after the enquiry, the selection of any of the petitioner or any other selected employee is found illegal and invalid, he or she be removed from service.”

¶70

Perusal of the aforementioned extracted portion of order passed in WPS No.4441 of 2012 would show that this Court has made categorical observation that whole select list should not have been cancelled and instead the candidate whose selection would have been found to be invalid and illegal, only his/her selection should have been cancelled individually and there might be some candidates who would have been selected genuinely.

¶71

From the aforementioned quoted portion of order, it is crystal clear that this Court while allowing writ petition has made clear observation that there is no requirement of cancelling entire list of appointments but appointment of each of appointees is to be considered individually to arrive at a conclusion whether particular candidate has been appointed by giving undue favour or not, even if there is irregularity whether particular candidate has been benefited with the said irregularity or not. There was further direction in the above order that fresh show cause notice is to be issued to each of candidates/appointees.

¶72

Though fresh show cause notice was issued granting opportunity to the appointees along with petitioners to submit reply to the show cause notice. However, from the order (Annexure P-10) it is not revealing that authorities have done exercise to consider the appointment of appointees individually whether their appointment can fall or can be

¶73

8

¶74

said to be benefited by any favour etc., but the respondents have only considered that in recruitment process, the authorities have done some irregularity in not reserving post for women, ex-service man and physically handicapped candidates and further that appointment of 44 candidates has been made against 32 posts advertised.

¶75

Along with reply, respondents have submitted enquiry report dated 04.03.2025 conducted by five member committee pursuant to the directives of respondent No.3. In para-1 of the enquiry report, the team conducting enquiry have observed that initially applications from aspirants were called till 26.03.2012 and by way of amendment in advertisement dated 16.05.2012 published it is mentioned that three posts are reserved for women but amendment appears to be unpurposeful as the date for submitting the application has not been extended. Report submitted by members conducting enquiry have not considered that pursuant to the post advertised, both the categories i.e. male and female can submit application for appointment and from list of candidates whose appointments were cancelled it appears that woman candidates have also submitted application and they were also appointed. Appointments of woman on the reserved post can be made from the applicants, who have already submitted their application, therefore, the said grounds for cancelling the entire appointment made in teeth of the order passed by this Court in WPS No.4441 of 2012 is not correct and sustainable. Further this Court has granted opportunity to respondents authorities to examine the genuineness of appointment of candidates individually meaning thereby it is for the respondents authorities to consider the appointment of each of candidates independently whether appointees including petitioners

¶76

9

¶77

were benefited directly even if there is some irregularities found to have been committed by authorities and officials of respondents department. There is no specific finding recorded by the authorities in this regard.

¶78

Order passed in WPS No.4441 of 2012 dated 28.04.2023 is not put to challenge by respondents-departments, therefore, the order dated 28.04.2023 has attend finality and respondents have to initiate further proceedings strictly in accordance with observation and directions of the order dated 28.04.2023 passed in WPS No.4441 of 2012.

¶79

Perusal of the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 would show that respondents authorities have considered that irregularities have been committed in initiating the recruitment proceedings and appointing 44 persons as Clause – IV employee, in particularly that posts were not reserved for women scheduled caste category candidates, ex-service man and physically handicapped candidates and further that select list is not published in newspaper calling claim and objections.

¶80

So far as the reservation for women is concerned, in the advertisement by way of amendment, three posts were reserved for one category. Even in the post advertisement, it is not mentioned that only male persons is to be appointed, therefore, it was open for both the candidates i.e. male and female to submit an application and after making an amendment in the advertisement, from the woman candidates applied, three posts reserved for women candidates can be filled up, therefore, the said finding recorded by the authorities on non reserving post for women is erroneous, is not sustainable.

¶81

10

¶82

So far as the submission of calling claim and objections publishing select list in the newspaper is concerned, it is a case of fresh recruitment of Clause-IV posts, therefore, under the rules, there is no requirement of publishing the select list in newspaper calling claim and objections, therefore, also the said finding/observation of the authorities is not sustainable.

¶83

Be that as it may, earlier also, appointment of petitioners along with others were cancelled mentioning that irregularities have been committed by the authorities in publishing the advertisement and completing the recruitment process. This Court while considering the petition filed by petitioners there in has made categorical observation that “whole select list should not have been cancelled and instead, the candidate, whose selection would have been found to be invalid and illegal, only his/her selection should have been cancelled individually and there might be some candidates who would have been selected genuinely”. It is not brought to the notice of this Court that any application for review of order is filed or this order is put to challenge in an appeal, therefore, the order passed in WPS No.4441 of 2012 dated 28.04.2023 have became final. The order impugned dated 08.05.2025 is in excess of direction issued by the High Court in order dated 28.04.2023 in WPS No.4441 of 2012, therefore, the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-10) is not sustainable. Accordingly it is quashed. However, the respondents authorities will be at liberty to pass fresh order in terms of directives and observations

¶84

11

¶85

made by this Court in WPS No.4441 of 2012 vide order dated 28.04.2023.

¶86

Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed.

¶87

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶88

Balram

Surendra Kumar Behra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Behra 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

Dr. Navneet Kumar Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Maravi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mrs. Poonambala Jaiswal Vs Smt. Niharika Barik Singh

Sandeep Kumar Saxena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tandale Rajaram Maruti Vs Union of India

Ganesh Ram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh