Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19643
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Madhuri Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 4347 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Satya Kumar Mandloi
For the Respondents: R.C.S. Deo
An order of termination passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction is void ab initio; therefore, the employee is entitled to reinstatement with full benefits rather than a fresh appointment on probation.
Headnote:The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, challenged an order of re-appointment on probation after being terminated by the Collector on grounds of possessing a forged mark-sheet. The petitioner relied on the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, specifically Rule 9, which vests disciplinary control in the Zila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat. The court found that the initial termination order was passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and without conducting a departmental inquiry. The primary issue was whether the petitioner should be re-appointed on probation or reinstated in service following a finding that the termination order was passed without jurisdiction. The court reasoned that an order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is "void ab initio" and that the respondent authority acted arbitrarily by re-appointing the petitioner instead of reinstating her, contrary to previous judicial observations. In result, this writ petition is allowed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for reinstatement following wrongful termination and subsequent re-appointment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over whether the collector had jurisdiction to terminate service. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. statutory disciplinary control and the void nature of orders passed without jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. entitlement to reinstatement over re-appointment when termination is void. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
Order On Board
1) Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:-
(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to modify order (Annexure P-1) and to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service from initial date of appointment instead of re-appointment with consequential / monetary benefit of the intervening period, within stipulated time, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.
2) Facts of present case are that petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 20.7.2007. Collector, Durg inquired into the higher secondary mark-sheet submitted by the petitioner and found it to be forged and bogus. Resultantly, her services were terminated and a direction was issued to lodge FIR vide order dated 7.7.2008. In the criminal case, petitioner was acquitted by the competent criminal court. Thereafter, petitioner filed WPS No. 3455 of 2020 which was disposed vide order dated 31.8.2020 holding that Collector exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the termination order and direction was issued to the respondents therein to decide the representation within period of 60 days. Pursuant to said order, petitioner preferred representation before Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Navagarh, who vide order dated 12.3.2021 re-appointed the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on probation for period of two years.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination order was passed by the Collector, Durg, who was not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and said order was never set aside in any proceeding whereas respondent No. 2 while deciding the representation of the petitioner re-appointed her on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on probation for period of 2 years. He contends that co-ordinate Bench in WPS No. 3455 of 2020 held that Collector, Durg issued termination order usurping its jurisdiction therefore respondent No. 2 ought to have re-instated the petitioner back into service. He prays to allow this petition.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that higher secondary mark-sheet of the petitioner was found to be forged therefore Collector, Durg vide order dated 7.7.2008 terminated the services of the petitioner and said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. He contends that in WPS No. 3455 of 2020, direction was issued to respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and the authority has considered the representation of petitioner and re-appointed her on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) vide order dated 12.3.2021. He argues that this writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.
5) There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 2 even though reply has been filed in its behalf.
6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
7) It appears that petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 2.7.2007 and her services were terminated by Collector, Durg vide order dated 7.7.2008 without holding any inquiry. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed according to Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 1997’]. According to Rule 9 of Rules of 1997, the disciplinary controls are vested with Zila P
