Shiv Shankar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:27467

¶3

AFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 962 of 2023

¶6

Shiv Shankar Sahu S/o Shri Dev Prasad Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ram Nagar, Tikrapara, Post- Tahsil- Takhatpur District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495330.

¶7

--- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

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

¶10

2 – Director, Directorate Public Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Joint Director, Directorate Public Education Division- Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - District Education Officer, Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, District : SarangarhBilaigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 – Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Gudeli, Development Block- Sarangarh, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondents

¶15

2

¶16

WPS No. 1648 of 2023

¶17

Neel Kumari W/o Kamlesh Wakre Aged About 32 Years D/o Guman Singh, R/o Village And Post Silpahari, Tahsil Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶18

--- Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

2 – Director, Public Education, Directorate, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶22

3 - Joint Director, Education Department, Education Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

4 - District Education Officer Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶24

			---Respondents
For Petitioners	: Mr. Ankit Verma, and Mr. Parag No.1648/2023.	Advocate Kotecha,	in WPS No.962/2023 Advocate in WPS
For Respondents	: Mr. Anish Tiwari,	Dy. Gov	t. Advocate and Mr.
	Mayur Khandelwa	l, Panel L	awyer.

¶25

Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J

¶26

Order on Board

¶27

(03^rd July, 2026)

¶28

Since the issue involved in both these petitions for adjudication is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶29

In WPS No.962/2023 filed by the petitioner Shiv Shankar Sahu under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he is seeking the following relief:

¶30

3

¶31

“i. To kindly call the entire records of the case related to the appointment of the present petitioner.

¶32

ii. To kindly quash the letter/notice dated 19/01/2023 issued by the respondent no. 03 and the respondents may kindly be restrained to take any coercive steps in terminating a physically disabled person.

¶33

iii. To kindly declare the appointment of the petitioner as Teacher Physical Education (Visually Challenged) Category as just, right and legal as per the advertisement issued dated 09/03/2019 and as per the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016.

¶34

iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶35

WPS No.1648/2023 has been filed by the petitioner Neel Kumari under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶36

“1. Quash/set aside the notice/letter dated 19/1/2023 issued by respondent no. 3.

¶37

Quash/set aside the notice/order dated 06/02/2023 issued by respondent no. 3 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in Services with all consequential benefits including seniority and full back wages.

¶38

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶39

4

¶40

Facts of the case, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.3.2019 issued by the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur inviting applications for filling up various posts of Lecturer, Teacher and Assistant Teacher, the petitioners, who were having requisite qualification, applied for the post of Teacher (Physical Education). It was mentioned in the advertisement that posts shall be reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) and Ex-army men in accordance with the Acts/Rules/Government Orders/instructions issued by the Government from time to time. It was also clarified in the advertisement that under the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016), reservation of posts shall be 7%, in accordance with the percentage applicable in the State.

¶41

The petitioners, who are visually challenged, successfully participated in the selection process and after due verification of their documents, they were appointed on the post of Teacher (Physical Education) vide order dated 24.8.2021 (Annexure P/6). Since their appointment, they have been discharging their duties with utmost sincerity and dedication. However, vide impugned show cause notice dated 19.1.2023 the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur directed the petitioner Shiv Shankar Sahu to submit his reply within 10 days as to why his services on the post of Teacher (Physical Education) be not terminated on account of being ineligible for this post as only persons with disability of OA (One Arm Affected) and HH (Hard of Hearing) are considered appropriate for this post by the Committee

¶42

5

¶43

constituted by the Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur. The petitioner has challenged the said show cause notice by filing WPS No.962/2023. A similar notice dated 19.1.2023 was also issued to the petitioner Neel Kumari by the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur which was replied to by her on 30.1.2023. However, by the impugned order dated 6.2.2023 the Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur, cancelled her appointment. She has challenged the show cause notice dated 19.1.2023 as well as her the order dated 6.2.2023 by filing WPS No.1648/2023.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the advertisement dated 9.3.2019 (Annexure P/2 in WPS No.962/2023) issued by the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur two posts of Teacher (Physical Education) were reserved for persons with disability. In the entire advertisement, it was not specifically mentioned as to persons with which nature of disability would be eligible or ineligible for the post advertised. Both the petitioners having 40% visual impairment submitted applications and were appointed on the post of Teacher (Physical Education). Learned counsel for the petitioner Shiv Shankar Sahu would submit that the petitioner has been working on the said post since 24.8.2021 but he has been served with a notice (Annexure P/1) seeking his explanation as to why his services be not terminated as his disability (Visually Challenged) does not fall in the category of disability (OA-One Arm Affected and HH-Hard of

¶45

6

¶46

Hearing) prescribed for the post of Teacher (Physical Education).

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner Neel Kumari would submit that she was appointed on the post of Teacher (Physical Education) and joined her services on 24.8.2021. She was also served with a show cause notice dated 19.1.2023 (Annexure P/8) seeking termination of her services on the same ground. She submitted a detailed reply (Annexure P/9) to the said notice, despite that her appointment was cancelled vide order dated 6.2.2023 (Annexure P/11) and she was removed from employment since 6.2.2023.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners would jointly submit that Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has been enacted to give effect to the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of the People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region. The Act defines “persons with disabilities” as those having not less than forty per cent of any disability and identified seven categories of the disabilities namely, blindness; low vision; leprosy-cured; hearing impairment; locomotor disability; mental retardation; and mental illness. They submit that the purpose of the aforesaid Act is for empowerment of the persons with disability so that the disabled persons may also feel themselves in the mainstream of the society. In the instant case, both the petitioners are having 40% visual disability. There is no law or rule framed by the State or the Central Government depriving the disabled persons having visual impairment from getting employment of Teacher

¶49

7

¶50

(Physical Education). The report of the Committee annexed as Annexure R/2 is merely a report of the officers and it does not have any legal force. Hence only on the basis of said report of the Committee, the petitioners cannot be deprived from continuing their employment. Therefore, both these petitions may be allowed and the impugned notices and the order (Annexure P/1, P/8 & P/11 respectively) may be quashed and the relief sought for may be granted in favour of the petitioners.

¶51

Reliance has been placed on the order dated 22.4.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.526/2013 in the matter of Rajdhani Yadav Vs. Collector, Korea and another which has been subsequently affirmed by the learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 6.11.2024 in WA No.717/2024 in the case of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur Vs. Collector, Korea and another .

¶52

The State has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State/respondents, referring to its reply, would submit that although in the advertisement, it was not specifically mentioned as to what kind of disabled persons would be entitled or disentitled for which post but it was mentioned in Clause 5(3) that posts shall be reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) and Ex-army men in accordance with the Acts/Rules/Government Orders/ instructions issued by the Government from time to time. It is further submitted that as per Clause 4(3)(b) of

¶53

8

¶54

the letter No. F 20-4/2014/vk-iz-/1-3 dated 27.9.2014, the list of identified posts notified by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Social Welfare, vide Notification No. F-1-21/2014/ld/26 dated 25.09.2014, is not exhaustive. The concerned department shall have the discretion to identify additional posts, apart from those already identified by the Department of Social Welfare, as suitable. However, no department or establishment shall, in the exercise of such discretion, exclude any post that has already been identified as suitable from the purview of reservation.

¶55

Learned counsel for the respondents/State, referring to Annexure R/2, further submits that in compliance of the aforesaid letter issued by the General Administration Department, Govt. of CG, and Order Number/LFkk-2/O;k-/111/2019/474 Atal Nagar dated 1.10.2019 of the Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, a team of officers had been constituted to identify the posts for appointment of the disabled persons. The said team of officers submitted their report vide covering memo of Annexure R/2 wherein it is stated that for the post of Teacher (Physical Education), only the persons having disability of OA and HH would be eligible for appointment. Since the petitioners’ disability does not fall in the nature of disability prescribed for the said post, they are not entitled to get appointment on the said post. Therefore, both these petitions being devoid of any substance are liable to be dismissed.

¶56

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

¶57

9

¶58

available on record.

¶59

The petitioners were appointed pursuant to a public advertisement dated 09.03.2019 on the post of Teacher (Physical Education) against vacancies reserved for Persons with Disabilities. It is not in dispute that both petitioners possess benchmark disability in the category of visual impairment and that they were found eligible by the Selection Committee after scrutiny of their educational qualifications, disability certificates and other testimonials. Their appointments were made after completion of the entire selection process and they continued to discharge their duties without any allegation regarding the quality of their work or misconduct.

¶60

The sole basis for issuance of the impugned show cause notices and, in the case of petitioner Neel Kumari, the consequential order of termination, is the report of a Committee (Annexure R/2), wherein it has been opined that the post of Teacher (Physical Education) is suitable only for candidates belonging to the categories of One Arm Affected (OA) and Hard of Hearing (HH). The respondents have failed to place on record any statutory provision, rule, notification or order issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 prescribing that persons with blindness or low vision are ineligible for appointment to the said post. Mere reliance upon the report of an administrative committee cannot deprive a citizen of a statutory right conferred by Parliament. The report contained in Annexure R/2 is only

¶61

10

¶62

an administrative recommendation. It has not been shown to have been issued in exercise of any statutory power under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 or the Rules framed thereunder. An executive recommendation, having no statutory force, cannot curtail the rights guaranteed under the Act nor can it become the foundation for terminating appointments already validly made.

¶63

Significantly, Clause 4(3)(b) of the General Administration Department Circular dated 27.09.2014 itself declares that the list of identified posts issued by the Social Welfare Department is not exhaustive. The said clause expressly authorises every department to identify additional suitable posts, but simultaneously prohibits any department or establishment from excluding any post already identified for reservation. The legislative intent underlying the said circular is thus to progressively expand employment opportunities for persons with disabilities and not to restrict them. The respondents have not produced any material to demonstrate that the post of Teacher (Physical Education) stood validly excluded for persons with visual impairment by any competent statutory authority. On the contrary, the respondents seek to restrict the eligibility of candidates solely on the basis of Annexure R/2. Such an exercise is contrary even to the aforesaid Government Circular, which permits only expansion of identified posts and not reduction of the rights available to persons with disabilities.

¶64

11

¶65

The advertisement dated 09.03.2019 also did not prescribe that only candidates suffering from OA or HH disability would be eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher (Physical Education). Rather, it merely stated that reservation would be governed by the applicable Acts, Rules and Government instructions. Had the respondents intended to restrict eligibility to particular categories of disability, the same ought to have been expressly mentioned in the advertisement itself. After inviting applications from all eligible persons with benchmark disabilities, permitting them to participate in the entire selection process, declaring them successful, issuing appointment orders and allowing them to serve for a considerable period, the respondents are estopped from introducing a fresh condition of eligibility, not contained either in the advertisement or in any statutory provision.

¶66

The action of the respondents is also manifestly arbitrary. The petitioners neither concealed any material fact nor secured appointment by fraud or misrepresentation. Their disability certificates were available with the respondents from the very inception. The respondents themselves verified all relevant documents before issuing appointment orders. Consequently, the respondents cannot seek to invalidate their own decision on the basis of a subsequent administrative opinion.

¶67

12

¶68

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a beneficial and social welfare legislation enacted to secure equality, dignity, participation and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities. Any interpretation restricting employment opportunities under the Act must have clear statutory sanction. In the absence of such authority, executive instructions or committee recommendations cannot be permitted to defeat the object of the legislation.

¶69

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of In Re: Recruitment

¶70

of Visually Impaired In Judicial Service, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481,

¶71

observed in para 3 of its judgment as under:

¶72

“Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law." This prophetic dissenting opinion of Justice John Marshall Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) can well be said to capture the spirit of what we are called upon to decide today. To draw a parallel, the Constitution of India is blind to the differences between able-bodied and differently abled citizens in matters of providing equal opportunity to all citizens in all spheres of life, including employment, and envisages equality and non-discrimination. This principle is to be enforced by the Constitutional Courts, by adopting a rights-based approach, providing an enabling environment and atmosphere, and ensuring that PwD are provided with equal opportunities, and accommodation that they need and deserve in order to make sure that they can lead their lives with dignity, realising their fullest potential without facing discrimination. Holding this concept of equality and non-discrimination as the basic

¶73

13

¶74

foundation on which all issues arising from the cases on hand are to be decided, we proceed further to deal with them.”

¶75

In the afore-cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the appointment of a judicial aspirant in judicial service, who was a visually impaired candidate, after detailed discussion, has observed in para 67 of the judgment as under:

¶76

“67. … Now, it is high time that we view the right against disability -based discrimination, as recognized in the RPwD Act, 2016, of the same stature as a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that no candidate is denied consideration solely on account of their disability. Further, as extensively discussed, the principle of reasonable accommodation, as enshrined in international conventions, established jurisprudence, and the RPwD Act, 2016, mandate that accommodations be provided to PwDs as a prerequisite to assessing their eligibility. In the light of the above, any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of PwDs, whether through rigid cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality...”

¶77

In the matter of Rajdhani Yadav (supra), the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was reserved for disabled person having low vision but against that post the petitioner having locomotor disability was appointed. Since no disabled candidate having low vision was available, hence appointment of disabled person having locomotor disability was upheld by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court which has been subsequently affirmed by the learned Division Bench in the

¶78

14

¶79

matter of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur (supra).

¶80

In the result,

¶81

WPS No.962/2023 is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 19.1.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3/Joint Director, Education, Bilaspur Division is hereby quashed. Since the petitioner Shiv Shankar Sahu is already in employment, no further order is required to be passed.

¶82

WPS No.1648/2023 is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 19.1.2023 (Annexure P/8) and the termination order dated 6.2.2023 (Annexure P/11) issued by respondent No.3/Joint Director, Education, Bilaspur Division, are hereby quashed. Since the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled, the respondent authorities are directed to reinstate her in service within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and grant her consequential benefits including full salary for the period from the date of termination until the date of her reinstatement. No order as to cost(s).

¶83

Sd/

¶84

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶85

Digitally
signed by
MOHD
MOHD AKHTAR
AKHTAR KHAN
KHAN Date:
2026.07.07
16:56:34
+0530
Khan

¶86

Judge

Shiv Shankar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Shiv Shankar Sahu 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

Smt. Reema Yadu Vs Gautam Yadu

Smt. Savita Rajput Vs Shri Siddharth Komal Singh Pardeshi

Sukhan Say Sidar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. M.D Tendway Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Varun Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Motilal Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh