Allowed¶43

Suresh Kumar Deshmukh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Feb 2026WPS/3273/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC, WPS 3273/2018, order dt. 17.02.2026, Justice Sachin Singh Rajput. Promotion of Suresh Kumar Deshmukh (Teacher (Panchayat) to Lecturer (Panchayat), Maths) by CEO Zila Panchayat Balod cancelled on 13.04.2018 for gradation-list error without pre-decisional hearing; cancellation held unsustainable for breach of natural justice (civil consequences), following Prakash Ratan Sinha (2009) 14 SCC 690 and Jeevan Lal Verma (WPS 1525/2023, dt. 04.11.2025). Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; liberty to respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) set aside with liberty reserved to respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶43

Suresh Kumar Deshmukh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 13.04.2018 cancelling the petitioner's promotion, passed without any opportunity of hearing or show cause despite entailing civil consequences, is sustainable in law.

¶23

Court's answer

Before passing the impugned order the principle of natural justice was admittedly not complied with by the respondents — no opportunity of hearing or show cause was afforded to the petitioner.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Placing reliance on the cited judgments (Prakash Ratan Sinha, (2009) 14 SCC 690, paras 9, 14 & 19, and Jeevan Lal Verma, WPS No. 1525/2023, para 9), the Court held that the impugned order does not sustain judicial scrutiny and set it aside.

¶42

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned order.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPS No. 3273 of 2018, decided 17.02.2026 (Sachin Singh Rajput, J.) — Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) of respondent No.2 (CEO, Zila Panchayat, Balod) cancelling the petitioner's promotion order dated 05.04.2018 (Annexure P/3) from Teacher (Panchayat) to Lecturer (Panchayat), Subject – Maths, pursuant to which he had joined on 07.04.2018 (Annexure P/4). Stated ground: petitioner stood lower in the gradation list of Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre as on 01.04.2017. Cancellation made without any opportunity of hearing or show cause; respondents conceded the absence of hearing. Court, placing reliance on Prakash Ratan Sinha v. State of Bihar, (2009) 14 SCC 690 (paras 9, 14 & 19) and its own order in Jeevan Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 1525/2023 (dt. 04.11.2025, para 9), held that an order entailing civil consequences passed without affording hearing does not withstand judicial scrutiny; impugned order set aside with liberty to respondents to proceed in accordance with law; petition allowed. Interim stay had kept the petitioner working on the promoted post; his services were absorbed with the State Government during pendency (as submitted). Pending IAs disposed of.

¶1

¶2

RAVISHANKARMANDAVI Digitallysigned byRAVISHANKARMANDAVIDate:2026.02.2312:36:16+0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:8457

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3273 of 2018

¶7

1 - Suresh Kumar Deshmukh S/o S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Deshmukh, Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As Lecturer Panchayat At Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kannewada, Block And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya P. S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For Intervenor : Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

17/02/2026

¶18

Order dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2

¶19

is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

¶20

¶21

Constitution of India. By the order impugned, the promotion order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner promoting him from the post of Teacher (Panchayat) to Lecturer (Panchayat) Subject – Maths was cancelled.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Teacher (Panchayat) in Government Pre-Secondary School, Korguda, Block - DondiLohara. Vide order dated 05.04.2018 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No.2, he was promoted on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) subject Maths and was posted in Government Higher Secondary School, Kannewada, Block – Balod. In compliance of the said order the petitioner vide order dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure P/4) was permitted to join the promoted post, thereby he joined his duties on the said post. Suddenly, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order impugned dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) was passed by the respondent No.2 by which his promotion order was cancelled and he was reverted back to his parent institution i.e. Government Pre-Secondary School, Korguda.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing or show cause was given to the petitioner. The order impugned has a civil consequences and had affected his right, thus, liable to be setaside, on this score only. To buttress his submissions he placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prakash Ratan Sinha vs. State of Bihar and others reported in

¶24

¶25

(2009) 14 SCC 690 and order dated 04.11.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No. 1525/2023 ( Jeevan Lal Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another ).

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders. They submit that the petitioner was placed below in the gradation list of Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre as on 01.04.2017, when this mistake was realized, the petition’s promotion order was cancelled. However, they are not in position to dispute that before passing the order impugned, no opportunity of hearing or show cause was given to the petitioner.

¶27

Mr. Vipresen Agrawal, adopts the submission of learned counsels for the respondents.

¶28

Mr. Rao, submits that on the strength of interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is still working on the promoted post and further during pendency of this writ petition, the service of the petitioner was absorbed with the State Government.

¶29

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

¶30

From the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the order impugned was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing or show cause to the petitioner. From the record it appears that in compliance of his promotion order dated 05.04.2018 and 07.04.2018, the petitioner has joined his promoted post. This Court while issuing notice to the respondents granted interim order in favour of the petitioner that

¶31

¶32

the effect and operation of the order impugned will remain stayed and it appears that the said order was continued from time to time.

¶33

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Prakash Ratan Singh

¶34

(supra) in paragraph 9, 14 & 19 has held as under :

¶35

“9.The respondent is an instrumentality of the State, and therefore, all its administrative decisions would be subject to the doctrine of equality and fair play, as incorporated in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If any of its actions or administrative decisions result in civil consequences, the actions or decisions could be judicially reviewed or tested on the anvil of principles of natural justice. This principle of law has been laid down by this Court in a catena of cases.

¶36

14.Corollary principles emanating from these cases are as to what particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case and that it is only where b there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity of being heard and on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed on the decision maker itself implies an obligation to hear before deciding. These cases have also observed, whenever an action of public body results in civil consequences for the person against whom the action is directed, the duty to act fairly can be presumed and in such a case, the administrative authority must give a proper opportunity of hearing to the affected person.

¶37

19.The Division Bench of the Court does not dispute the fact of passing of the impugned order without hearing the appellant, but condones the procedural irregularity by bringing it under the "doctrine of futile exercise". b According to the Court, even if an opportunity of showing cause was afforded to the appellant, it would not have made any difference.

¶38

¶39

This Court in case of Jeevan Lal Verma (supra) placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held in paragraph 9 as under :

¶40

From the perusal of record as also the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is a well settled principle of law that before passing any order which entails civil consequences, the person concerned must be afforded an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, since the petitioner has been demoted without being given any such opportunity, the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice.”

¶41

In the case in hand, admittedly before passing the impugned order, the principle of natural justice has not been complied with by the respondents.

¶42

In view of above and placing reliance upon the judgment cited above, the impugned order does not sustain the judicial scrutiny of this Court. Thus it is hereby set-aside. Liberty is however reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶43

This writ petition is thus allowed .

¶44

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶47

Ravi Mandavi

Suresh Kumar Deshmukh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Deshmukh 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

Jaipal Nirala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Baratu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Truhome Finance Limited Vs Malay Raha

Equitas Small Finance Bank Vs Chandra Shekhar Diwan

Banshi Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs Janak Ram Patel