IMPORTANT POINT
The Collector lacks jurisdiction to revoke resolutions of the Panchayat under Section 85(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and any such order is void.

ORDER :

1. Since common question of fact and law are involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, these three writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together and are decided by this common order.

2. The three petitioners herein were appointed to the post of Siksha Karmi Grade-III, new Primary School, Surguja on 05.06.2006 (Annexure P/3), which was questioned by one Bridhichand Kujur in WPS No. 856/2008. Subsequently, this Court vide order dated 11.02.2008 (Annexure P/11), directed the Collector, Surguja to examine the entire issue and pass an appropriate order in accordance with rules. Meanwhile, after completion of the probation period, the services of the petitioners were regularized vide order dated 07.07.2010. However, vide order dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P/4), the services of the petitioners were terminated and respondent No. 4 was directed to constitute an enquiry committee and to verify the credentials of each of the candidates. In compliance with the Collector’s order dated 28.11.2011, the CEO, Janpad Panchayat/respondent No. 5, terminated the services of the petitioners vide order dated 22.12.2011 (Annexure P/5). Thereafter, the petitioners filed separate writ petitions before this Court, challenging their termination order dated 28.11.2011. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure P/6) of this Court, the petitioners were directed to avail the alternative remedy of approaching the revisional or appellate authority. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 25.01.2012, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority/respondent No. 2 and the same was allowed vide order dated 11.06.2013 (Annexure P/8), and the Collector was directed to constitute a new enquiry committee to investigate into the entire matter and to obtain a fresh enquiry report and on the basis of that report, to pass a fresh order in accordance with rules.

3. Meanwhile, the General Administrative Committee of Janpad Panchayat passed a resolution on 22.05.2012, holding that the employees working for more than five years will be confirmed in service. However, the Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj/respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure P/2), revoked the resolution passed by the General Administrative Committee on 15.05.2012 & 22.05.2012, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 85(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (herein after to be referred as the “Act of 1993” for brevity) and directed to proceed in accordance with law. Ultimately, the CEO, Janpad Panchayat/respondent No. 5 removed the petitioners from service vide the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure P/1). Consequently, these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning orders dated 30.07.2013 & 31.07.2014, assailing that the orders are contrary to the provisions contained in Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993.

4. Return has been filed by the State opposing the instant petition stating that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with law and therefore, their services have been terminated.

5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 85(1) of the Act of 1993, the Collector only has the power to suspend the resolution passed by any Committee constituted by Janpad Panchayat but he has no jurisdiction to set aside the resolution and that too without seeking confirmation by the Prescribed Authority. As such, the order in question is in teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Kavita Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2021) SCC Online CG 3036.

6. Learned counsel for the State would support the impugned order and submits that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with law and therefore, their services have rightly been terminated. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the CEO, Janpad Panchayat/respondent No. 5 has only complied the order passed by the Collector.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the p