1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 1515 of 2009

Smt. Lata Ramesh Kumar Nishad, W/o Ramesh Kumar

Nishad, Aged about 25 years, Darripara, R/o Gram

Panchayat Kosmi, Tahsil Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary,

Department of Panchayat & Social Welfare, D.K.S.

Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director

(Panchayat),

Chhattisgarh,

Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

3. Additional Collector, Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

4. Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat,

Gariyaband, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

6. Gram Panchayat, Kosmi, Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur,

Chhattisgarh through its Sarpanch.

7. Salim Memon, S/o Mohd. Zifar, R/o Village

Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

For Petitioner :-

Mr. Anuroop Panda on behalf of

Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate

For State

:-

Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.

2

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board (Through Video Conferencing)

29/06/2021

1. The petitioner herein claims that he was appointed

on the post of 'Contract Teacher (Class III)' in

Primary School, Kosmi by order dated 28/08/2003

(Annexure P-4), but during the course of his

employment, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad

Panchayat, Gariyaband, by order dated 21/01/2004,

directed the Headmaster of the Primary School to

discontinue the service of the petitioner and

accordingly, her service was terminated and instead

respondent No. 7 was appointed on her post against

which the petitioner filed a case before the Sub-

divisional Officer, Gariyaband which was dismissed

by order dated 05/09/2005 (Annexure P-3).

Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the

petitioner before the Collector which was also

dismissed by order dated 18/09/2007 (Annexure P-2)

against which petitioner preferred a revision

before the Director (Panchayat), but that too has

been dismissed vide impugned order dated 02/12/2008

(Annexure P-1), feeling aggreived against which

this writ petition has been preferred.

3

2. Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner

was duly appointed on the post of 'Contract Teacher

(Class III)' on 28/08/2003, but her services were

abruptly discontinued on 22/01/2004, which is ex-

facie illegal and bad in law, as such, the impugned

order deserves to be set aside.

3. Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel, would

submit that he has requisitioned the original

appointment Register which shows that only

respondent No. 7 was selected and appointed on

23/08/2003 by the Gram Panchayat and petitioner was

never selected and appointed on the said post, as

such, petitioner's case has rightly been dismissed

by the S.D.O. and thereafter, rightly affirmed by

the Collector and the Director (Panchayat).

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein-

above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

5. It is not in dispute that petitioner and respondent

No. 7 along with ten other candidates were called

for selection on the post of 'Contract Teacher

(Class III)' in Primary School, Kosmi and upon

consideration, respondent No. 7 was appointed by

4

Gram Panchayat Resolution dated 23/08/2003 and

petitioner was never appointed on the said post

which is clear from the original appointment

register which has been requisition by learned

State counsel and on that basis, the Sub-divisional

Officer has clearly recorded that petitioner was

never appointed on the said post which has rightly

been affirmed by the Collector and the Director

(Panchayat). Since respondent No. 7 was appointed

on the said post and petitioner was never appoin