'\^^y ^^€^'S-<" jgi.F r ^ ,.--*' . t41' .^^^!^^ ^y...^^' e^}^ ^**'" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fS) N0. \^ /2011 Petitioner Versus Neelam Kispotta, Aged about 40 years, W/o Late Shri Mangru Ram Bhagat, R/o Village Kodopara, Post Nanhesar, Block 8s Tahsil - Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur-jC.G.) Respondents ^ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretaiy Education, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) 2. The Secretaiy, Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipyr, Distt. Raipur- (C.G.) ^ 3. Block Education Officer, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) y 4. Chief Executive OfEcer, Zila Panchayat, Jashpur-(C.G.) 5. Chief Executive OfGcer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagicha, District Jashpur-(C.G-) 6. Collector Jashpur-fC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE_226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA <STC| ^qwwif^ ®Tlly'l<o,fs<<T)I.H4< —.....(A3.-P'(^ t-o-11 a^V/ > "^L 200 Sf^V TRW (l^clf-i»<<tT) sn^t^Tfyrw 'tT8^ 3TT^»pqf^T- TCTOT'ofo 3iit?r W SBj Hon'ble Shri Manindra IVIohd 14-06-2011 wifwitTwreff it'fezt tfeeR ^sifinOT^r n Shrivastava. j. Shri Hanuman Prasad ^ra Shri N.Naha Roy, Panel L; ^|vai, counsel fbr the petitioner. ^wyer for the State/'respondent No.1, 2, 3 and6. By this petition, the petitior and validity of order dated 25/8/09 of the petitioner on compassional Executive Oificer; Janpad Pancha' Learned counsel for the p^ came to the notice and kncwledgl the petitioner was working. When] order, she preferred a representat appellate authority under the prov] and Revision) Ruies, 1995 (for sh| the Collector, till date, has not dec| Learned State counsel sut authority under the rules of 199f which she has already availed by; Taking into consideration for the parties and also taking <er has cailed in question, the correctness |(Annexure P/1), bywhich the appoimment (e basis has been cancetled by the Chief I'at, Bagicha. Ktioner submitted that order dated 25/8/09 ^ of the petitioner on 12/5/10 and till then, |the petitioner came to know about the said |on to the Collector, who happens to be the |sions of Chhatlisgarh Panchayats (Appeal >rt 'the Rules of 1995'). it is submitted that ided the representation ofthe petitioner. imits that as the Cotiector is the appellate i, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal, ling representation on 14/5/2010. he submissions made by learned counsel into consideration that the petitioner has already approached the constitifed appellate authority, as provided under Rufe 3 of the Rulesof 1995, it w^utd be expedient in the interest ofjustice to directthe Coilector to decide the ^ppeal / representation ofthe petitioner. ^ °!aS£Ss;% ^&-.-»^" '^sy ~y J XI-HC-22 sn^i^i R;-ii.+ sn^r ^Wh ^P^S Deepti -s-ss -^w\v\^, ^•<S\W\'i. hwvy. SIT^T 3pra? ..tA5.:.f..'.^.!^9..:..?'% sy/ '^PI, ioo W1MI Sh*<|ch fq^T' sn^i^giwgftg 3. Accordingly, it is directed thatl treat petitioner's representation dat^d under Rule 3 of the Rules of 19951 within a reasonable time. With the aforesaid observatioijis, the petition is finally disposed off. qi|^fet41'rl HIHflf ^ fs*^ <f^]^l< ^3if:(pTsn^T respondent No.S-Collector, Jashpurshali 14/5/2010 (Annexure P/5)as appeat and decide the same expeditiously and Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge '<t"t-'i;;inE;]^[ i^li't I-J-.-?-J.F