[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Satyendra Kumar Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:12925
ASHOK
SAHU NAFR
Digitally
signed by
ASHOK SAHU
Date:
2026.03.18
17:40:24
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8709 of 2019
1 - Smt. Preeti Bakre, W/o. Shri Vinay Bakre, Aged About 47 Years, R/o.
Near Brihaspati Bazar, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Avnish Kumar Soni, S/o. Shri J.R. Soni, Aged About 37 Years, R/o.
Juna Bilaspur, Baniapara, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Amrit Lal Narmada, S/o. Shri Pardesilal Narmada, Aged About 52
Years, R/o. Near Water Tank, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Dilip Kumar Sharma, S/o. Shri Malikram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o.
Jorapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2
2 - Director Public Instructions, Lok Shikshan Sanchalanalay (DPI),
Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4- Chhattisgarh Shiksha Samiti, Through Its Secretary, Office
Chhattisgarh Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate
No.1 to 3
For Respondent : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate on behalf of
No.4 Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
Satyendra Kumar Jaiswal, S/o. Susheel Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 39
Years, R/o. Vill. - Nimdha, Tehsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh. Posted- Bapa Higher Secondary School, Nimdha, Post -
Siksha Karmi Class-II (Teacher Anudan) Tehsil Marwahi, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Public Instructions, Lok Shikshan Sanchalanalay (DPI),
Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Vanvasi Seva Mandal, Through Its Secretary, Office Mandla, District
Mandla, Madhya Pradesh.
--- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents No. : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate
1 to 3
1 - Jamuna Kishor Sahu, S/o. Late Baldau Prasad Sahu, Aged About 46
Years, R/o. Village Birkona, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Manoj Kumar Kaushik, S/o. Shri G.P. Kaushik, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o. Village Birkona, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o. Late K.R. Sahu, Aged About 52 Years, R/o.
Village Birkona, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi, S/o. Shri Baisakhu Ram Suryavanshi,
Aged About 46 Years, R/o. Village Birkona, Tahsil And District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secreatry, Department Of School
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director Public Instructions, Lok Shikshan Sanchalanalay (DPI),
Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - District Eductation Officer, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Birkona Shikshan Samiti, Through Its Secretary, Office Chhattisgarh
Higher Secondary School, Birkona, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate
to 3
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnakar, Advocate
(Single Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
18.03.2026
1. These writ petitions are directed against the impugned order dated
30.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioners are directed to
be reverted by canceling the approval granted on the promotional
post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II.
2. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would submit that
no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before
passing the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order deserves
to be quashed.
3. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents would support the
impugned order and submit that the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the documents meticulously.
5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnish Kumar Mishra &
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others1 has held as under in
para 17 :-
"17. As such, apart from the Circular issued by the
Registrar General of the High Court, dated 5-11-2009, the
appellants' cases were also required to be taken into
consideration in view of the exception carved out in
Umadevi [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1
: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. We find that the Committee
under the Chairmanship of the Additional District Judge
had rightly submitted its report dated 12-7-2012 and the
then District Judge had rightly passed the order of
regularisation on 9-11-2012 granting regularisation from
1-6-2012. We find that while considering the
representation of some of the employees for promotion,
the successor in the office of the District Judge could not
have annulled the order of the regularisation of the
appellants which was done after following the proper
procedure. The least that was required to be done was to
1 (2019) 17 SCC 648
follow the principles of natural justice by giving an
opportunity of being heard to the appellants. We find that
the three orders passed by the District Judge dated 16-8-
2014 also suffer from violation of the principles of natural
justice.
6. Since the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles
of natural justice, therefore, in light of the principles laid down in
Rajnish Kumar (supra), the impugned order dated 30.09.2019
(Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are at liberty to
proceed in accordance with law by giving proper opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners. However, it is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the
respondents authority shall be at liberty to consider the case of the
petitioners, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.
7. In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent
as indicated herein above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Ashok Judge
