Administrative orders cannot modify, stay, or set aside judicial or quasi-judicial orders.

The petitioners, serving as Assistant Teachers (Panchayat) for over 15 years, sought regularization and absorption as per State policy

Following a prior High Court direction in WP(S) No. 8095 of 2018 to consider their claims, the Collector constituted an inquiry committee, but no decision was rendered

The petitioners filed a revision before the Commissioner, Sarguja Division (Revision No. 162/B-121/2018-19), which was allowed on 18.05.2020, directing the CEO, Janpad Panchayat to regularize their services

Consequently, the petitioners were regularized in May and September 2020

However, on 27.01.2021, the Director Panchayat issued an administrative letter directing the District Panchayat not to comply with the Commissioner’s order and to challenge it

Based on this letter, the CEO, District Panchayat cancelled the petitioners' regularization on 08.02.2021

Whether an administrative order issued by the Director Panchayat can legally stay, modify, or restrain the operation of a quasi-judicial order passed by the Commissioner in a revision

Whether the cancellation of the petitioners’ regularization orders by the District Panchayat, based solely on administrative instructions, was legally sustainable

The court relied on the established principle that a judicial or quasi-judicial order cannot be modified, set aside, or stayed by an administrative order.

It specifically cited the Supreme Court decision in Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar v. State of Bombay and Ors. (AIR 1964 SC 436), which held that when an authority exercises revisional powers (such as under Section 79 of the relevant Act), it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, and such orders attain finality unless reviewed or set aside by a competent higher judicial authority

The Court observed that the Commissioner’s order dated 18.05.2020 was a quasi-judicial determination made after verifying the petitioners' credentials

The High Court clarified that its previous order in WP(S) No. 8095 of 2018 simply required the authorities to "consider" the case and did not mandate the formation of an inquiry committee, rendering the Collector's delay and the Director's subsequent interference unnecessary

The Court reasoned that the Director Panchayat lacks the legal authority to deviate from or restrain the implementation of a Commissioner’s judicial order through a mere administrative letter

While the State holds the liberty to challenge the Commissioner’s order before an appropriate higher forum (such as the State Government), it cannot unilaterally nullify the effect of a judicial order via executive fiat

The Court held that the Director had no authority to modify the Commissioner’s quasi-judicial order

The respondents were directed to comply with the Commissioner’s directions regarding the regularization and absorption of the petitioners

The Court granted the respondents liberty to pursue their pending revision/appeal before the State Government