Dayanidhi Sao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:2874

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 4329 of 2025

¶6

1 - Girdhari Tripathi S/o Late Shri Bhuneshwar Prasad Tripathi Aged About 43 Years By Post - Swachhkarta / Paricharak / Sah-Chowkidar, At Office Of Pashu-Chikitsalay At- Joba, Tumgaon, P.S. And Tahsil And Distt. - Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Agricuture Cum (Animal Husbandary), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Deputy-Director Veterinary Services, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Chief Executive-Officer Disrict - Panchayat, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Collector Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Anand Vikas Mishra S/o Yashwant Prakash Mishra Aged About 41 Years R/o Friends Colony, Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.), (Complainant)

¶15

-- Respondent(s)

¶16

WPS No. 10092 of 2025

¶17

1 - Keshav Prasad Rathiya S/o Manohar Singh Aged About 35 Years Earlier Posted As Sweeper/attendant-Cum-Chowkidar At Veterinary Dispensary Kudekela Block Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh C.G.

¶18

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶19

Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶20

2 - Sandeep Kumar Rathiya S/o Prakash Singh Rathia Aged About 32 Years Earlier Posted As Sweeper/attendant-Cum-Chowkidar At Veterinary Dispensary Maharajganj Block Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh C.G.

¶21

3 - Ratan Kispotta S/o Logo Kispotta Aged About 45 Years Earlier Posted As Sweeper/attendant-Cum-Chowkidar At Veterinary Dispensary Vijaynagar Block Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh C.G.

¶22

4 - Akshay Kumar Kerketta S/o Hiralal Kerketta Aged About 34 Years Earlier Posted As Sweeper/attendant-Cum-Chowkidar At Veterinary Dispensary Saskoba Block Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh C.G.

¶23

2

¶24

5 - Hari Shankar Rathia S/o Madhy Ram Rathia Aged About 34 Years Earlier Posted As Sweeper/attendant-Cum-Chowkidar At Veterinary Dispensary Katakliya Block Lailunga District Raigarh C.G.

¶25

6 - Ashok Kumar Mishra S/o Radheshyam Mishra Aged About 36 Years Earlier Posted As Sweeper/attendant-Cum-Chowkidar At Veterinary Dispensary Basantpur Block Lailunga District Raigarh C.G.

¶26

7 - Dilip Singh S/o Sidar Singh Aged About 35 Years Earlier Posted As Sweeper/attendant-Cum-Chowkidar At Veterinary Dispensary Rajpur Block Lailunga District Raigarh C.G.

¶27

8 - Pramod Bhagat S/o Sadhuram Bhagat Aged About 36 Years Earlier Posted As Sweeper/attendant-Cum-Chowkidar At Veterinary Dispensary Sonajori Block Lailunga District Raigarh C.G.

¶28

--- Petitioner(s)

¶29

Versus

¶30

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Livestock Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶31

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Raipur District Raipur C.G.

¶32

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

¶33

--- Respondent(s)

¶34

WPS No. 7107 of 2025

¶35

1 - Bishambhar Mishra S/o Chandidev Mishra Aged About 44 Years Posted As Sweeper/ Attendant-Cum-Chowkidar Veterinary Dispensary Laripani Block Lailunga District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶36

--- Petitioner(s)

¶37

Versus

¶38

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Livestock Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶39

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶40

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶41

--- Respondent(s)

¶42

WPS No. 7853 of 2025

¶43

1 - Asinta Kujur D/o Late Kashmir Kujur Aged About 42 Years R/o Attarmuda, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶44

--- Petitioner(s)

¶45

Versus

¶46

3

¶47

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandary Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Tal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶48

2 - Director Veterinary Service, Raipur (C.G.)

¶49

3 - Deputy Director Veteinary Service, Raigarh (C.G.)

¶50

4 - Zila Panchayat Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶51

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Service, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G)

¶52

6 - Collector Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶53

--- Respondent(s)

¶54

WPS No. 7791 of 2025

¶55

1 - Saroj Kumar Rathia S/o Hemlal Rathia Aged About 39 Years R/o Loharpara, Sambalpur, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶56

--- Petitioner(s)

¶57

Versus

¶58

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandary Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶59

2 - Director, Veterinary Service, Raipur C.G.

¶60

3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Service, Raigarh C.G.

¶61

4 - Zila Panchayat, Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh C.G.

¶62

5 - Joint Director, Veterinary Service, Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh C.G.

¶63

6 - Collector, Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh C.G.

¶64

--- Respondent(s)

¶65

WPS No. 7827 of 2025

¶66

1 - Digamber Das Mahant S/o Kajar Das Mahant Aged About 46 Years R/o School Para, Chhatamura, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

¶67

--- Petitioner(s)

¶68

Versus

¶69

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandary Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt Raipur C.G.

¶70

2 - Director, Veterinary Service, Raipur C.G.

¶71

3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Service, Raigarh C.G.

¶72

4 - Zila Panchayat, Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh Dist. Raigarh C.G.

¶73

4

¶74

5 - Joint Director, Veterinary Service, Raigarh Dist. Raigarh C.G.

¶75

6 - Collector, Raigarh Dist. Raigarh C.G.

¶76

--- Respondent(s)

¶77

WPS No. 7363 of 2025

¶78

1 - Khagesh Kumar Sao S/o Shri Govindram Sao Aged About 37 Years R/o Village And Post Kachhar, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶79

--- Petitioner(s)

¶80

Versus

¶81

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dsitrict Raipur (C.G.)

¶82

2 - Director Veterinary Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)

¶83

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶84

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶85

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶86

6 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶87

--- Respondent(s)

¶88

WPS No. 7347 of 2025

¶89

1 - Dinesh Kumar Nishad S/o Dhaneshwar Prasad Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Kutela, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh

¶90

--- Petitioner(s)

¶91

Versus

¶92

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶93

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶94

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶95

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶96

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶97

6 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶98

--- Respondent(s)

¶99

5

¶100

WPS No. 7341 of 2025

¶101

1 - Gunnidhi Uraon S/o Shri Banatram Uraon, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Udhra, Post Kotari, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh

¶102

--- Petitioner(s)

¶103

Versus

¶104

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶105

2 - Director, Veterinary, Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶106

3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶107

4 - Zila Panchayat, Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶108

5 - Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶109

6 - Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶110

--- Respondent(s)

¶111

WPS No. 7371 of 2025

¶112

1 - Santosh Singh Nishad S/o Shri Suritram Nishad Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Sarwani, Post Naurangpur, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶113

--- Petitioner(s)

¶114

Versus

¶115

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶116

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶117

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶118

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶119

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶120

6 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶121

--- Respondent(s)

¶122

WPS No. 7365 of 2025

¶123

1 - Jogendra Minj S/o Darajram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Udhra, Post Kotri, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶124

--- Petitioner(s)

¶125

6

¶126

Versus

¶127

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dsitrict Raipur (C.G.)

¶128

2 - Director Veterinary Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)

¶129

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶130

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶131

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶132

6 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶133

--- Respondent(s)

¶134

WPS No. 6667 of 2025

¶135

1 - Dayanidhi Sao S/o Shri Govindram Sao Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Kachhar, Tehsil Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶136

--- Petitioner(s)

¶137

Versus

¶138

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶139

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶140

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶141

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶142

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶143

6 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶144

--- Respondent(s)

¶145

WPS No. 7478 of 2025

¶146

1 - Ruplal Patel S/o Meghnath Patel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And Post Kachhar, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶147

--- Petitioner(s)

¶148

Versus

¶149

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶150

7

¶151

2 - Deputy Veterinary Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶152

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶153

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶154

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶155

6 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶156

--- Respondent(s)

¶157

WPS No. 7659 of 2025

¶158

1 - Gouri Shankar Patel S/o Dayaram Patel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Balamguda, Tehsil And Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶159

--- Petitioner(s)

¶160

Versus

¶161

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶162

2 - Director Veterinary Service, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶163

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Service, Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶164

4 - Zila Panchayat Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh Dist. Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶165

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Service, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶166

6 - Collector Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶167

--- Respondent(s)

¶168

WPS No. 7769 of 2025

¶169

1 - Suresh Bareth S/o Babulal Bareth Aged About 39 Years R/o Near Trimurti Mandir Chowk Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶170

--- Petitioner(s)

¶171

Versus

¶172

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandary Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶173

2 - Director Veterinary Service Raipur (C.G.)

¶174

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Service Raigarh (C.G.)

¶175

4 - Zila Panchayat Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶176

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Service Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶177

8

¶178

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

¶179

--- Respondent(s)

¶180

WPS No. 7837 of 2025

¶181

1 - Santosh Kumar Patel S/o Udhav Lal Patel, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Teka, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶182

Petitioner(s)

¶183

Versus

¶184

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandary Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶185

2 - Director, Veterinary Service, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶186

3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Service, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶187

4 - Zila Panchayat, Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶188

5 - Joint Director, Veterinary Service Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶189

6 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶190

--- Respondent(s)

¶191

WPS No. 7366 of 2025

¶192

1 - Ramkishore Sidar S/o Shri Ghunsai Rathiya Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Sajapani, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶193

--- Petitioner(s)

¶194

Versus

¶195

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶196

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur C.G.

¶197

3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.

¶198

4 - Zila Panchayt Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.

¶199

5 - Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.

¶200

6 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.

¶201

--- Respondent(s)

¶202

WPS No. 7372 of 2025

¶203

1 - Shital Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Vijay Shankar Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Sarangarh Kutela Tehsil And District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.)

Petitioner(s)

9

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶208

2 - Director Veterinary Services Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.)

¶209

3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services Chhattisgarh Raigarh Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶210

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶211

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Services Chhattisgarh Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶212

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

¶213

--- Respondent(s)

¶214

WPS No. 7370 of 2025

¶215

1 - Chetan Singh Rathiya S/o Late Tejram Rathiya, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Mura, Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶216

--- Petitioner(s)

¶217

Versus

¶218

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶219

2 - Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Disrict Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶220

3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattsgarh

¶221

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶222

5 - Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶223

6 - Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶224

--- Respondent(s)

¶225

WPS No. 7367 of 2025

¶226

1 - Laxman Bhoy S/o Late Gaurhari Bhoy, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Chhinch, Post And Police Station Pusaur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶227

--- Petitioner(s)

¶228

Versus

¶229

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Animal Husbandry, Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶230

10

¶231

2 - Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶232

3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶233

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh, Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶234

5 - Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶235

6 - Collector. Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶236

--- Respondent(s)

¶237

WPS No. 7368 of 2025

¶238

1 - Ramavtar Sidar S/o Baratram Sidar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Pujeripali, Post Girgira, Tehsil Dabhra, District- Sakti ( C.G. ).

¶239

--- Petitioner(s)

¶240

Versus

¶241

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department Mantralaya, Mahandai Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ).

¶242

2 - Director Veterinary Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur ( C.G. ).

¶243

3 - Deputy Director Veterinari Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ).

¶244

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh Through- Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ).

¶245

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh ( C.G.).

¶246

6 - Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ).

¶247

--- Respondent(s)

¶248

WPS No. 7855 of 2025

¶249

1 - Sukhlal Tigga S/o Kandaru Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Ghatgaon, Tehsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶250

--- Petitioner(s)

¶251

Versus

¶252

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandary Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Tal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶253

2 - Director Veterinary Service, Raipur (C.G.)

¶254

3 - Deputy Director Veteinary Service, Raigarh (C.G.)

¶255

4 - Zila Panchayat Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶256

11

¶257

5 - Joint Director Veterinary Service, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G)

¶258

6 - Collector Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶259

--- Respondent(s)

¶260

WPS No. 7350 of 2025

¶261

1 - Tikeshwar Prasad Saha S/o Vinod Kumar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Vijaypur (Ratanpali), Post- Nadigaon, Police Station And Tahsil Sariya, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh C.G.

¶262

--- Petitioner(s)

¶263

Versus

¶264

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶265

2 - Director Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur C.G.

¶266

3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, Near Kewda Badi Bus Stand, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.

¶267

4 - Zila Panchayat Raigarh Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.

¶268

5 - Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.

¶269

6 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G.

¶270

--- Respondent(s)

¶271

WPS No. 7567 of 2025

¶272

1 - Chaturbhuj Rathia S/o Late Mohansay Rathia, Aged About 35 Years R/o Badpali, Sambalpur, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶273

--- Petitioner(s)

¶274

Versus

¶275

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agricultural Animal Husbandary Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶276

2 - Director, Veterinary Service, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶277

3 - Deputy Director, Veterinary Service, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶278

4 - Zila Panchayat, Through Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶279

5 - Joint Director, Veterinary Service, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶280

6 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶281

--- Respondent(s)

¶282

(The cause title is taken from CIS system)

¶283

12

¶284

For Petitioners	: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocates for respective petitioners
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate
For Intervener (In WPS No. 4329 of 2025)	: Mr. R.K. Bhagat, Advocate

¶285

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶286

16/01/2026

¶287

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

¶288

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/ Deputy Director Veterinary Services 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

¶289

13

¶290

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 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. Respondentsauthorities 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 impugned order 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.

¶291

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 the impugned order dated 08.05.2025. He also contended that as petitioners have completed about 13 years of

¶292

14

¶293

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 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 impugned order dated 08.05.2025 is per-se illegal and bad.

¶294

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 impugned order dated 08.05.2025 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 dated 08.05.2025 is bad in law as

¶295

15

¶296

petitioners have been removed from service without conducting any departmental enquiry, is not correct.

¶297

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

¶298

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 :-

¶299

“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.

¶300

16

¶301

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 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.”

¶302

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.

¶303

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.

¶304

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 08.05.2025 it is not revealing that

¶305

17

¶306

authorities have done exercise to consider the appointment of appointees individually whether their appointment can fall or can be 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.

¶307

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

¶308

18

¶309

respondents authorities to consider the appointment of each of candidates independently whether appointees including petitioners 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.

¶310

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.

¶311

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.

¶312

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

¶313

19

¶314

filled up, therefore, the said finding recorded by the authorities on non reserving post for women is erroneous, is not sustainable.

¶315

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.

¶316

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 therein 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 is not sustainable. Accordingly it is quashed. However, the respondents authorities will be at liberty to pass fresh

¶317

20

¶318

order in terms of directives and observations made by this Court in WPS No.4441 of 2012 vide order dated 28.04.2023.

¶319

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.

¶320

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶321

Balram

Dayanidhi Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Dayanidhi Sao 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

Shalini Vishal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Kumar Pandey Vs Shri Avinash Champawat

Parmeshwar Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bishambhar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkishore Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chetan Singh Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh