y/ 0L” 9g gbGH CGUR’E‘ {EF (EEAE‘EESGARE AT §§LASHJR W’RET Fi‘l’i‘i'i‘IGN §$§ N0. E215 g§‘2{}€}$ PETITIQNERS : 1. Ku. Rasaami Baia ?a‘:e'i D/‘O Ramia} Pate}, agmi about 22 yeaw R/e Bios}; Coiony Saraigmii, District Mahasamumi (C.G.) Occupaiiim ~ Sal-Vice working on the pOSt of Shikghakanni Ciarss * Iii a: Primary $61100} Bhoi-mixiih, Tahsi3 ~ Fi‘éam‘a, Distriet ~ Mahasaimmé (CG) $‘i3at3‘ughan S/e Sewak Das Maaikpuri, ageE; about 21 yams, Occugiatiom ~ Service, wm‘king 012 the pQS’L of Shikshakmm Class % HI, at Govt. Primary SchooL Beiiciih, Digit ~ Mahasamwd, Rm ViEiage Chharched, ?ost - Pigda, Distt. - Raiyur (0(1) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, ihrough Secretary, Panchayat and Social Walfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur (06.) 2. Director, PanchayaL Raipur, Dismct w Raipur (C.G.) 3i Coilecter, Mahasamuiid, Distrigt ~ Mahasamund (CL?) ' 4i Chief Execu‘iive Officer, Janpad Panchayai) i3ith6ra, Disaiet — Mahasamumi (CG) 5‘ Disirict Educatian Ofiicer, Mahasamund, Distzict Mahasammid { C.G.) 6. Chief Execuiive Officm‘, District Panchayeit Mahasamund, District — Mahaiéamund (CG) w RES?GNE)ENTS W’RIT PETYfiQN UNDER ARTICLE 225 OF THE CONSTITUTI‘ON O? LNDIA $3: Emi’hie Shri Satish K. Agnihetiz‘, .3. ?resem: V Sim; Sum} Salim, Aiivocate for the peti‘iioaars. Shri Satish Gupia, Government Afivocaie far the State i’ respondent No. 1, 2, 3 and 5. 0mg0RnER (Passed 0r} 28§T§ay of March, 2W8) With {he consent 9f the pai‘iies, ihe matter is takea up for hearing fmaily. The peii‘iioners were a§pointed as Shiksha Kanni Grade 1H on 25.06.2987 {Amaemre PM) at Primary School Bhokuldih, Tahsii ~ Piihom, zmd Govt. Primary School, Beiiéih, District Eviahasamumi. respectiveiy. Ali of a sudden, without atforoiiw z; any o19 ommit of hearim, a the ae t oiiztmeitts of the M» h NI peii’5ioners wera caneeiied on (34.08.2007 (Annexwe P/3) by the Chief Executive Oiiicer, Janpad Panchayat, Piihora, on ihe basiS of some complaint made t0 the Coilector, Mahasamund. Leamed counsel amearing for the petitioners submi‘is ihat the question of law as to Whether an empioyee is entitled i0 Show cause notice even to examine the genuineness of the document, has aiready been considered by this Court in a batch ofmatter by judgment and oeder dated 14m March, 2008 in W.P.(S) No. 95/2068 (Kn. Punam & Others Vs. State ofChhattisgarh & Others) ané other connected matters. This case is squarely covered on the Question of law. Shri Gupta: learned Government Aovocate submits that so far as the question oflaw is concerned, it has already been considered and decided by this Court in the above stated judgment. However, the State be permitted to verify the facts ofthe case. In View of the foregoing, this petition is aiiowed in the same terms i.e. petitioners be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuinene‘ss‘, truthfulness of the documents submitted by them for obtaining anpointments on the post and to out tbrward their cases before their appointments made eariier is cancelled. The impugied order dated 20.11.2G0’7 {Amiexure W1), 30.07.2007 (Amiemre W2) and 04.98.2067 {Annexare 13/3) in a'espect of the petitioners shaii not be given effect to untii the direction mentioned hereinabove, is compiied with. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ()J 1 Agni: