u IN THE HIGH COUEX OF QHHA'ITISGRRH AT BIIASPUR Wn't Petition No.245412004 “’ PETITIONER . am, a mi ve) t t , r ra ro $ z Han' Lal Mourya, . ‘3‘] o Shri Kalu R a‘ged about 42 years, working x Panchayat Kar — Sachiv (Remod R] o Village— Bharatpur, Post- Janakpur, Dist. Karin (C.G.). -Versus— State of Chhattiagarh, Through the Secretary Departmen of Panchayat, Mantralaya D. K. S. Bhawan, Shastri Chawk, Rnipur (C.G.). Deputy Director, Pancha‘y‘at & Social Welfare, Karia (C.G.). Conevto, Baiknnthpur, District— Koria (C.G.). Janyad Panchayat Bhatpur, Thugh it’s Chief &ecue OEcer, Bharatpur, Koria (C.G.). Gram Panchayat Bharatpur, Through its cln'ef Executive OEcer, Bhm'atpur, Districtv Koria (6.0.). / / WRIT PEI‘l'l‘ION UHDER ARTICLE ‘ 26 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ND FOR UAN E I E NATURE OF S H ERTIORARI 0.0 ANY UFHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IE THE MATTER. Details of the yetition. l. PARTICULAR OF THE PETITIONER : As par cause h‘tle. ‘ XI—HC——78 WW W 3) a L‘s—WW zggq mqwqawg) WWW mamm ' WW §Q°iW maamm avsifa‘wm 19101/200E - ‘ Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senimr Advocate, with Shri L,T. Modi counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta. Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the State/tespondents 1, 2 and 3, on advance copy. Heard. \ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat Bharatpur on 30/10/1 999.. Certain a iegations were made against the petitioner on account of which he was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi vide order dated 30(08/2003 (Annexure-P/1). Further submission of the iearned counsei is that against the aforesaid removai the petitioner filed a representation b ore the Collector, Baikunthpur on 17/09/2003. Thereafter by a fresh r olution dated 03/10/2603, it Was resolved that the petitioner should again appointed as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panohayat. Bharatpur‘ lt is further submitted that after the said resolution, respondent No.2 ssued a memo dated 17/06/2004 mentioning that since the petitioner w s removed earlier by the order of the Collector on 30/08/2003, he can ot be appointed on the said post. The aforesaid order dated 17/06/2004 is tiled as Annexure-P/3. . ln fact, the petitioner has tile this petition for quashing of the aforesaid order dated 17/06/2004 (A nexure-P/3) by a writ of certiorari. ln sum and substance the petitioner has notchallenged the order of removal eariier passed by the Coll c’tor. Annexure-P/3 is simply a memo issued to the petitioner. It is in the form of a communication. / / Xi-HC 78 mmh 31mm (Wm mma‘m *?\‘ mwmfaia? WW,W v ammam appointment of the petitioner. This of action in favour of the petitioner petition has no merit. Accordingly, t is observed that the petitioner is st the order of removal passed by lin accordance with law. Respondent No.2 is neither appointing authority‘nor any authority which l can take any action in the matter of‘ . memo does not disclose any cause to file the instant writ petition. The the same is dismissed. However, free to take appropriate steps again the Collector which is available to hin l sci/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge