2026:CGHC:7543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1613 of 2026 Hari Shankar Gupta S/o Shri Chakrapani Gupta Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Tetala, Tehsil- Pussor, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioner Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Livestock Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Veterinary Services, Indravati Bhawan, Block No. 03, Ground Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

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

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

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy. G.A.

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

Order on Board

11/02/2026

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the cancellation of the appointment order dated 27.09.2012 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the services of the petitioner who was appointed on the post of Swachhkarta/Paricharak Sah Chowkidar, has been cancelled.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that an advertisement was issued on 29.02.2012 by Deputy Director, Veterinary Services i.e. respondent No.3 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. The petitioner 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 into the matter and submitted report to the Collector. The petitioner was served with show cause notice based on the enquiry report submitted by respondent No.3. petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice, however without considering the reply to the show cause notice, appointment of petitioner was cancelled and thereafter he 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 petitioner along with others and directed the authorities to issue fresh show cause notice and to examine case of petitioner therein individually. Respondents-authorities thereafter issued show cause notice on 06.09.2024. The petitioner filed reply and thereafter second show cause notice was issued on 04.10.2024, which was also replied. After submission of reply by the petitioner, respondents authorities has passed the order Annexure P-9 dated 08.05.2025 holding the recruitment proceedings to be void and cancelled the appointment of petitioner and other persons appointed pursuant to the recruitment proceedings based on the advertisement dated 29.02.2012, which is put to challenge in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 27.09.2012 canceling appointment of petitioner 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 petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service. The petitioner thereafter continued in their service till passing of order Annexure P-9 dated 08.05.2025. He also contended that as petitioner has completed about 13 years of service, therefore, he has acquired the status of permanent employee. In the aforementioned facts of the case, if any, action is to be taken against petitioner like removal from service, then the respondents authorities