•<& ,).- SinglBBench ^ ^ w ^ IN THE HIGH eOURT OF eHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / Writ fetition liO.^UC^3 12005 PETITIQNER /- ^ >>•••'' ^l-^^ v>?^€-^ .-..•••"'.y?^^--" : ^•^^s^ -y' RESPONI3ENTS ^•vV.:J ^ :^ || j v!}^i_^ ._.._^e^.< •^ \. ! 'lf 1 'l' ^"r??^^T?w?^i Narsjngh Patel S/o. Shri Dukhiram Patel Aged about 21 years <. Presently posted as SMikshakarmi Grade-111 At Govt. Upps. School Balpur, District JanjgjF-ChamRa (C.G.) R/o. Vill Lateseiia, Chandrapur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) V&RSUS ^y'State of Chhaftisgarh ThroLigh:Secretary I D&partment of Panehayat & Rurali Development , Mantralaya DiK.S., Bhawan , Raipur (C.G.) ^ The Collector , Jangjir-Champa District Jangjir-Champa (C.G.) S^^Janpad Panchayat Dabhara Through : Its Gliief ExecutiyesQffJicer Dabhara, Dist. JanaJir-ChaFnpa (<3.G.) WRIT PETITIONU/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTTI^Vn-ti)NJQf:JIN&LA <9 1S X- m ^r;; '^ i.! n^. ^ /?' <. •B ms fflGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No. 4103 of2005 NarsingU Patel. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE GONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Susil Dubey,G6vemment Advocate for the State/ respondent N6.1 and 2. Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passedon06thday ofApril, 2011) 1. Leame^ coimsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law involved herein asto whether the services of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, after appointment can be cancelled on the ground that fhere was irregularity in the selection process. The said issue was considered and decided by this Court inKu. Punam & Ofhersv. State ofChhattisgarh & Others1. 2. Leamed counselappearmg for the other side fairly submit that the instant petition is squarely coveredby the decision ofthis Court in Ku. PunamfeOthers (supra). 3. This very question came up for consideration beforethis Court in Ku. Punam & Others (supra). While allowing the ease of Ku. , Punam & Other (sypra), this Court observed as under: ; "22.W& cQses orihdnd arenot thecases oj' cancellation^ of the selection process, the seiectidn process have not been UhAiijlAli ^.'f fovnd vttiated on accotmt ofany reqson including mass cppying or mass irregulanties . The present cases are where the appdintment orders,' after having given effect to, ' have been cancelled subseqitently, on discovery of some facts that some of the candviates had submitted fdlse and forged documentstoobtaintheappointments. 23. Applying the •well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe present cases, the respondents/authorities have already prepared a second select list on the basis . of the selections held earlier. On scrutiny, most of the candidates found place % the second list and their appointments are continwng, as such. some ofthe candidgtes could not find a place inthe second list after scrutiny on accpunt qfdoubtful documentsisubmitted by them. It is, therefore, directed thatthe candidates who have not foiind place in the second list be afforded an opporturiity of hearing to establish genuineness, truthfulness of tfie documents submitted by them for obtaining appointment on the posts before their appoinfments made earlier are cancelled. ' 4. In yiew of the wellsettled prmciples of law, this petition stends disposed of in terms ofKu. Punam (supra). 5. Np orderasto costs. SdA'" Satish K. Agnlhotri Judge Amit