Smt. Laxmi Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:15462

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 195 of 2021

¶6

1 - Smt. Laxmi Patel Wife Of Shri Chetan Kumar Patel Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village Faraswani, P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Janpad Panchayat Saraipali Through Chief Executive Officer, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Adv. For State/Respondent : Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

06.04.2026

¶15

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :

¶16

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 11.06.2019 (Annexure P-1) and direction may be issued to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice.

¶17

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶18

-2-

¶19

The facts in brief are that on 18.09.2012 an advertisement was issued by the Janpad Panchayat Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for total 11 posts of Teacher (Panchayat) in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (for short ‘the Rules of 2012’). The required qualification for said post was Graduation with two years diploma or one year B.Ed. Certificate or four years B.El.Ed. Degree. The petitioner applied for said post and was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on 27.08.2013 and posted at Government Higher Secondary School Birkol, District Mahasamund (C.G.). The petitioner was removed from services vide order dated 23.09.2013 on the ground that on the date of advertisement, the petitioner was not having requisite qualification of B.Ed. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Mahasamund and it was dismissed vide order dated 30.12.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WPS No.1643 of 2016 which was disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer a revision petition before the authority concerned. The petitioner filed a revision before the State Government according to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision)Rules, 1995 and same was dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2019. The petitioner has challenged said order by filing this petition.

¶20

Mr. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that according to the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, the required qualification for the post of Teacher

¶21

3

¶22

(Panchayat) was D.Ed./B.Ed. He would further submit that subsequently, an amendment was inserted in the Rules of 2012 and the required qualification for the post of Teacher (Panchayat) became D.Ed./B.El.Ed. He would contend that the petitioner was duly appointed by the respondent authorities and her services were removed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without holding any inquiry. He would pray to allow this petition.

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose submissions. He would submit that the petitioner was lacking requisite qualification for the post of Teacher (Panchayat) and this was the reason, her appointment order was cancelled. He would further submit that according to the Rules of 2012, the prescribed qualification for the post of Teacher (Panchayat) was Graduation with two years diploma or one year B.Ed. Certificate or four years B.El.Ed. Degree. He would contend that as the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification, therefore, the competent authority terminated the services exercising power of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2012. He would submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by the Collector, Commissioner and the State Government and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶25

The petitioner has not placed a copy of B.Ed. Certificate along with this petition.

¶26

The required qualification as per Schedule IV of the Rules of 2012

¶27

-4-

¶28

was Graduation with two years Diploma or one year B.Ed. Certificate or four years B.El.Ed. Degree. The petitioner was wrongly granted appointment by the respondent authorities as she had neither B.Ed nor D.Ed. Certificate. The petitioner failed to her bonafide before the Collector or Commissioner by placing said document.

¶29

The required qualification as per Schedule IV of the Rules of 2012

¶30

reads as under :

¶31

“(ब) शि�क्षक (पं�चा�यत) हे�त�न्य�नतमअहे�त�एं� : ��क्षशि�कएंवं�व्या�वंसा�यियकय�ग्यत�:- कि�सी�मा�न्यता�प्रा�प्ताकि�श्वकि�द्या�लय/सी�स्था�नसी� किनम्नलिलखि�ताय�ग्यता�हो� :- (�) स्न�ता�औरप्रा�रम्भि��लि क्षा�मा" कि#�र्षी%यकि&प्ल�मा� (चा�हो�उसी�कि�सी�न�मासी�जा�न� जा�ता�हो�) अथ�� न्य,नतामा 50 प्राकिता ताअ � - ��सी�थस्न�ता�ए��लि क्षा� [* स्न�ता� (बी�०ए&०) *] मा" ए��र्षी%य

¶32

अथ��

¶33

न्य,नतामा 45 प्राकिता ताअ � - ��सी�थस्न�ता�ए��लि क्षा� 1[* *] मा" ए��र्षी%यस्न�ता� (बी�०ए&०) जा�इसीसी�बी�धमा" सीमाय-सीमायपरजा�र�कि�एगएर�ष्ट्री�यअध्य�प�लि क्षा� परिरर्षीद्9 (मा�न्यता�, मा�नद्ण्& ताथ�कि;य�कि�धिध) कि�किनयमा��अन=सी�रप्रा�प्ताकि�य�हो�न� चा�किहोए।

¶34

अथ��

¶35

न्य,नतामा 50 प्राकिता ताअ � - ��सी�थउच्चतारमा�ध्यधिमा� (अथ��इसी��सीमा�क्षा) ए�� प्रा�र�भिA�लि क्षा� 1[* *] मा" 4 �र्षी%यस्न�ता� (बी�०एल०ए&०)। अथ��

¶36

न्य,नतामा 50 प्राकिता ताअ � - ��सी�थउच्चतारमा�ध्यधिमा� (य�उसी��सीमा�क्षा) ए�� 4 �र्षी%यबी�०ए०ए&०/ बी�०एसी०सी�०ए&० 1 [* *]1 * अथ��

¶37

न्य,नतामा 50 प्राकिता ताअ � - ��सी�थस्न�ता�ताथ�ए��र्षी%यबी�०ए&० (कि� �र्षी लि क्षा�)।"

¶38

Taking into consideration the above-quoted provisions of Rules of 2012 and concurrent findings recorded by the authorities concerned, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶41

Rekha

Smt. Laxmi Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmi Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akanksha Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anshumala Washnik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Geeta Yadav Vs Collector

M. S. Painkra Vs State of Chhattisgarh