Allowed¶33

Mrs. Lata Korram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2026WPS/8437/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lata Korram v. State of Chhattisgarh; WPS No. 8437 of 2022; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; order dated 02/07/2026; 2026:CGHC:27186; NAFR. Termination of Sweeper by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Uttar Bastar Kanker quashed; Class V certificate of Directorate of Adult Education / National Literacy Mission Authority held covered by State Circular dated 25.07.2012 equating Adult Education Scheme certificates with School Education Department certificates; reinstatement ordered forthwith with 40% back wages and post benefits; writ petition allowed; no enquiry conducted before termination.

What did the court decide?

Termination order dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure P-11) quashed; petitioner to be reinstated forthwith with 40% of back wages and other benefits attached to the post of Sweeper. ¶33

Mrs. Lata Korram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Termination order dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure P-11) quashed; petitioner to be reinstated forthwith with 40% of back wages and other benefits attached to the post of Sweeper.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's Vth Class certificate obtained from the Directorate of Adult Education (Adult Education Scheme, National Literacy Mission Authority) is equivalent to the Class Vth qualification granted by the State of Chhattisgarh, and whether respondent No. 2 could lawfully terminate her services as Sweeper on the ground that it was not equivalent.

¶23

Court's answer

The reasons assigned by respondent No. 2 for terminating the petitioner's services were erroneous and contrary to the State Government's Circular dated 25.07.2012 (which treats Adult Education Scheme Vth Class certificates as equivalent); respondent No. 2 also ignored that the petitioner's Vth Class certificate was issued by the Government of India, National Literacy Mission Authority.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Order Annexure P-11 dated 18.08.2022 is quashed and the respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.

¶29

Key takeaways

On reinstatement, the petitioner shall be entitled to 40% of back wages along with the other benefits attached to the post.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh HC (Bilaspur), WPS No. 8437 of 2022, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J., 02/07/2026 — Writ petition ALLOWED. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Uttar Bastar Kanker had terminated a newly appointed Sweeper on the sole ground that her Class V certificate from the Directorate of Adult Education (Adult Education Scheme, National Literacy Mission Authority, Government of India, issued 15.10.2014) was not equivalent to Class V of the State Board. Holding the termination grounds erroneous and contrary to the State's Circular dated 25.07.2012 declaring Adult Education Scheme Vth Class certificates equivalent to School Education Department certificates — and noting the certificate was issued by the Government of India, National Literacy Mission Authority — the Court quashed the termination order (Annexure P-11 dated 18.08.2022), directed reinstatement forthwith, and awarded 40% of back wages with other benefits of the post. No precedent cited.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.02 18:05:06 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:27186

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 8437 of 2022

¶7

*** -** Mrs. Lata Korram W/o Mr. Bansi Ram Korram Aged About 44 Years By Caste Ganda, Village Bagodar, Police Station Kanker Post Bagodar, Tahsil Kanker, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Director And Member Secretary State Literacy Mission Authority, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - District Education Officer And Member Secretary District Literacy Mission Authority, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat And Vice President, District Literacy Mission Authority, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner	:	Ms. Anushka Pathak, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 4	:	Ms. Vithika Choubey, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 5	:	Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

02/07/2026

¶19

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

¶20

“ 10.1 Quash / set aside the order dated 18.08.22 issued by the respondent No. 2 and consequentially the order of removal may also be set aside.

¶21

¶22

10.2 Direct the respondents and its authorities to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Sweeper with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Ms. Anushka Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for post of Sweeper pursuant to Advertisement dated 18.10.2021. She would submit that the minimum qualification for said post was Class V^th pass. She would submit that the petitioner had cleared her V^th Class examination from Directorate of Adult Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, MHRD, Government of India in the year 2014. She would contend that according to the Circular dated 25.07.2012, Class V^th examination certificate passed from Directorate of Adult Education would be equivalent to Class V^th examination conducted by State Board. It is also argued that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sweeper on 09.05.2022. It is contended that the respondent No. 2 without holding any enquiry, terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that V^th pass certificate submitted by the petitioner is not equivalent to certificate of Class V^th granted by the State of Chhattisgarh. Ms. Anushka Pathak would submit that the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 is erroneous. She would pray to allow this petition.

¶24

On the other hand, Ms. Vithika Choubey, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner passed V^th Class examination from Directorate of Adult Education which is not equivalent to regular Class V^th examination and therefore, the respondent No. 2 rightly terminated

¶25

¶26

the services of the petitioner. They would submit that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

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

¶28

It is not in dispute that the petitioner passed V^th Class examination from Directorate of Adult Education. It is an education run by National Literacy Mission Authority, Directorate of Adult Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, MHRD, Government of India. The petitioner participated in the examination and cleared it and the certificate was issued on 15.10.2014. A Circular was issued by State of Chhattisgarh on 25.07.2012 wherein it is held that V^th Class certificate issued under Adult Education Scheme will be equivalent to the certificate issued by School Education Department of the State Government. The petitioner applied for post of Sweeper and she was selected. She joined services on 18.05.2022 and subsequently the respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner only on the ground that V^th Class examination certificate is not found valid. The reasons assigned by respondent No. 2 while terminating the services of the petitioner appear to be erroneous and contrary to the Circular issued by the State Government dated 25.07.2012. Further the respondent No. 2 ignored the fact that the V^th Class certificate in favour of the petitioner was issued by the Government of India, National Literacy Mission Authority.

¶29

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, order Annexure P-11 dated 18.08.2022 is hereby quashed . The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be

¶30

¶31

entitled for 40% of back wages along with other benefits attached to

¶32

the post.

¶33