##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:14909 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2887 of 2026

1 - Nisha Thavre W/o Shri Suresh Thavre Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Chikhlakasa, Dallirajahra, Distt. Balod Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.

Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Collector, Kanker Distt. North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

3 - District Education Officer Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Raman Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

01/04 /2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated

15.01.2015 and direct the respondents to reinstate

the petitioner into service.

2

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the fresh representation of the petitioner in light of the order dated 08.11.2021 and

relevant rules/circulars within stipulated time period.

10.3 Any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including

awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was terminated from his service vide order dated 15.01.2015. The orderof termination was not served upon the petitioner, however, when the petitioner has made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 11.02.2021 then only, the information was supplied to the petitioner in the year 2021. The writ petition is filed thereafter, on 16.03.2026, therefore, he contended that in the facts of the case, delay is not to be counted from the year 2015 and the writ petition has been filed

within time, after receipt of the order dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure P/1) .

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State opposes the submission made by the counsel for petitioner and would submit that that the order passed by the Respondent No. 4/Chief Executive Officer is of the year 2015 and thereby, the writ petition is filed with delay of more than 10 years from the date of passing of the order. She also pointed out that the impugned order is passed by the Respondent No. 4 upon enquiry being conducted by him wherein, petitioner has been held to be ineligible

for appointment.

4. When question is posed to the counsel for petitioner as to since when,

petitioner is not in service, he fairly submitted that according to his

instructions, petitioner is not in service since the year 2008.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

3

6. Perusal of the order dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure P/1) would show that

the petitioner has filed proceedings before the Respondent No. 4. She being an applicant, the proceedings filed by the petitioner was decided on 15.01.2015 wherein, the petitioner has been held to be ineligible for her appointment. Petitioner has not filed any order removing from her service as her marks was much below the cut-off marks from the last candidate appointed in her category. In the order dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure P/1) which is an order of removal, upon re-enquiry, it is mentioned that the petitioner submitted forged experience certificate and on that basis, she was awarded 10 additional marks. The experience certificate enclosed along with the application form of the petitioner was got verified through Block Education Officer, who submitted a report stating that the experience certificate was not issued. If a person obtains a job on forged documents then, leniency