Allowed

Smt. Bhawana Arthur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026WPS/6730/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition challenging the termination of services of an Incharge Principal by the Chhattisgarh Diocese Board of Education. The High Court held that the termination was invalid as it was done without the mandatory prior approval of the competent authority as required by Section 6(a)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Ashakiya Sikshan Sanstha Adhiniyam, 1978, which the respondents admitted was not complied with.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.08.2026 (Annexure P/13) is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondent Board/authorities to proceed further and pass an appropriate order afresh, strictly in accordance with law and after complying with the statutory requirements.

Smt. Bhawana Arthur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed bySHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date:2026.09.18 17:02:06 +0530

CGHC010358242026

2026:CGHC:40886

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 6730 of 2026

¶8

Smt. Bhawana Arthur Shri Atul Arthur Aged About 50 Years R/o Suman Niketan, Pendra Road, Tehsil - Gourela, District- GaurelaPendra-Marwahi (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Director Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - District Education Officer District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Chhattisgarh Diocese Board Of Education Church Of North India, Through Its Chairperson, Opposite Raj Bhawan, Gate No. 1, Civil Lines, Raipur – 492001

¶15

5 - The Chairperson Chhattisgarh Diocese Board Of Education,

¶16

¶17

Church Of North India, Opposite Raj Bhawan, Gate No. 1, Civil Lines, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.)

¶18

6 - The Secretary Chhattisgarh Diocese Board Of Education, Church Of North India, Opposite Raj Bhawan, Gate No. 1, Civil Lines, Raipur - 492001 (C.G.)

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Goutam Khetr with Ms. Pranoti Das	apal, Advocate along ,Advocate
For	: Shri Vinay Pandey,	Dy. Advocate General
Respondent/State	assisted by Shri	Aditya Tiwari, Panel
	Lawyer
For Respondent no.	4: Shri Amrito Das	, Senior Advocate
	appearing through	Video conferencing
	alongwith Shri Yash	karan Singh,Advocate

¶22

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

18.09.2026

¶25

By way of the present petition, the petitioner who is working as an Incharge Principal has challenged the order dated 18.08.2026 (Annexure P/13) passed by the Chhattisgarh Diocese Board of Education, whereby her services have been terminated.

¶26

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned termination order is contrary to the mandatory provisions contained under Section 6(a)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Ashakiya Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon ke Vetano ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978.

¶28

Referring to the said statutory provision, learned counsel submits that no teacher or other employee shall be dismissed, removed, or have their services terminated without the prior approval of the competent authority. It is further submitted that although a communication was subsequently sent to the District Education Officer, as apparent from Annexure P/13, no prior approval as mandated under Section 6(a)(iii) of the Act of 1978 was obtained from the competent authority before taking the decision to terminate the petitioner's services.

¶29

On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as the counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 fairly submit that prior to the issuance of Annexure P/13 and the termination of the petitioner's services, no such prior approval was accorded by the competent authority.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

Upon hearing the submissions and upon a plain reading of Section 6(a)(iii) of the Act of 1978, it is evident that obtaining prior approval of the competent authority is a mandatory prerequisite before the dismissal, removal, or termination of the services of any teacher or employee. For the sake of convenience Section 6(a)(iii) of the Act 1978 is reproduced as under:

¶33

“6. Prohibition on creation of posts and appointments of staff and termination of services .- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for

¶34

the time being in force or any rules, regulations,

¶35

byelaws, statutes or regula- tions made thereunder, -

¶36

(a) on and from the appointed date,-

¶37

xxx xxx xxx

¶38

(iii) no teacher or other employee shall be dismissed or removed from service or his services terminated

¶39

without prior approval of the competent authority:

¶40

Provided that a teacher or other employee may prefer

¶41

an appeal against his dismissal, removal or termination from service to an appellate authority as

¶42

¶43

the State Government may, by notification, specify within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order by him and such authority may after holding such enquiry as it may deem fit in the manner prescribed, may either set aside or confirm or modify the said order and pending the disposal of appeal, the appellate authority may also stay the operation of order on such grounds, as it thinks fit;

¶44

xxx xxx xxx

¶45

From the aforesaid provision it is quite vivid that no teacher or other employee shall be dismissed or removed from service or his services terminated without prior approval of the competent authority, whereas, in the case at hand, the respondents categorically admitted that the said provision has not been complied with in its true perspective.

¶46

Since the admitted position on record as conceded by the respondents is that no such prior approval was obtained before issuing the impugned termination order, Annexure P/13 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶47

¶48

Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.08.2026 (Annexure P/13) is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent Board/authorities to proceed further and pass an appropriate order afresh, strictly in accordance with law and after complying with the statutory requirements, if they so desire.

¶49

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.

¶50

(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶51

shoaib

Smt. Bhawana Arthur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhawana Arthur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases