Rajni Khairwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - District Education Officer Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Renuka Singh D/o Badrivishal Singh, Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Village Post And Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate. For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

07/07/2026

¶19

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.07 16:58:45 +0530

¶20

The instant petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the appointment order dated 04.09.2021 issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.

¶21

2

¶22

Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner, submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.05.2021, the petitioner applied for the post of lecturer Hindi subject as a candidate of Scheduled Tribe category. He would submit that an order of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner on 04.09.2021, but surprisingly, the said order was cancelled by the District Education Officer, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) vide order dated 06.09.2021 without affording any opportunity of hearing. He would submit that the authorities concerned have not assigned any reasons in the order impugned, and therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and may be set aside.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would refer to the merit list prepared by the selection committee dated 01.09.2021, wherein none of the candidates was found eligible for selection. They would submit that, due to a mistake, an order of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner, and it was subsequently cancelled by the District Education Officer, Bemetara (C.G.). They would further submit that the respondent authorities floated subsequent advertisement for the said post on 25.09.2021, wherein the petitioner also participated. They would further submit that the respondent No. 4 secured a position in the merit list and she was offered an appointment letter vide order of appointment dated 21.10.2021. They would submit that the instant petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

It appears that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Lecturer Hindi, and the merit list was prepared by the selection committee on 01.09.2021. Perusal of Annexure-P/4 i.e. the merit list, it is apparent that none of the candidates was found eligible for appointment to the said post, but due to a mistake, an order of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner on 04.09.2021. The said order was

¶26

3

¶27

cancelled by District Education Officer, Bemetara (C.G.) vide order dated 06.09.2021 as the petitioner was offered appointment due to a mistake, and the department rectified such mistake. Therefore, on the basis of such an appointment order dated 04.09.2021, where he was not found eligible by the selection committee, the petitioner cannot be permitted to claim any right to appointment. Subsequently, an advertisement was issued for the same post and respondent No. 4 has already been appointed and the petitioner also participated in the said recruitment process.

¶28

Having considered the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to pass any order in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed .

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

( Rakesh Mohan Pandey ) Judge

¶31

H.L. Sahu

Rajni Khairwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajni Khairwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sourabh Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Chingru Ram Mandavi @ Chingru Mandavi Vs Union of India

Smt. Pratima Patanwar, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumari Taslim Bano Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepshikha Xaxa Vs Smt. Anjana Khakha

Birbal Singh Vs Union of India