c^-l KSHS <>f<IS<U, 1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WRrTPETLTION (S)JiO. 1?5>^ / 2010 .0,< .(\^^ ff^^y ^.^y ^'>-' <>»•" IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ; AND IN THE MATTER OF CHHATTISGARH TRIBAL WELFARE SUB-ORDINATE (CLASS III - NON-MINISTERIAL) RECRUITMENT RULES 1970 ; AND IN THE MATTER OF CHHATTISGARH PUBLIC SERVICES (PROMOTION RULES 2003) ; AND BETWEEN : PETITIONER Shekhuram Sahu, SQP of Shri Tukaram Sahu, aged about 43 years, Upper Division Teacher Government Higher Secondary School, Gotatola, District Rajnandgaon, resident of Vil'age & Post Gotatola, Tehsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Commissioner - cum - Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ^T-T f. ^^ \ F3s'/T3'!fB..-r.] i v^?^^ Additional Director, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class and Minority Community Welfare Department, mrito Das,Advocate :>-a w ^•' 4. 5. 6. f^" Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Collector, District Chhattisgarh Assistant Department Deveiopment, Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon, Commissioner, of Tribal Rajnandgaon, Shri Anil Kumar Pandre, son of not known to the petitioner, age not known to the petitioner, Upper Division Teacher, Middle School, Khadgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDEROR ORDERS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRJTEETITION (S) N0.7533 OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Shekhuram Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 28th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the show cause notice dated 29-11-2010 (Annexure P/1) which was issued to the petitioner after having taken decision pn 28-11-2005 to cancelpromotion of the petitioner to the post of Upper Division Teacher holding that "an^cRT ^^ -^ w-'g^w^ TT^ *^ /•f^ISTT-^TT. /02 /180/ 2005 /11897 ^TOy, RT1l'<ft 28/11/2005 ^RT \i4<')<W ^T ^T •l:Rff-TCT;Trf?T 1^FTf ^ f^^T ^ ^TSPT srfSt^t c^ i^\ apiTft^T ^ ^TT?r ?t^ c^ arraR TR f?R^r ^? f^TT 'TITTI STTgSRT T[?t^?T gRT 4c;1"lR:l f^fTOcp TT? I^R^ l^ ^TT^ TR 3f\^l amf^T ?2TT t.? W^l^ch ch|\i"h' •?rft?T W^ ^ |" 3. At the very outset, leanred counsel appearing for the parties very fairly and jointly submit that the identical issue Came up for consideration before this Court in Rajesh Kumar Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters wherein this Court, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 1 &Anothe^, observed as under: 1 WP (S) No.7658 of 2010 (decided on 25-1-2011) 2 (2008) 14 SCC 151 i7 5. Gowri "4. In the case on hand, there js no statutory provision to provide post- decisional hearing, which necessitates review of the order in full. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case where admittedly decision to quash the earlier order of promotion was taken before issue of show cause notice. Thus, show cause notice is vitiated." Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned notice dated 29-11-2010 isquashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. 1 SafebK.A^» l— Judge