) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3441 of 2003 Petition.er Respondents Versus 1. 3. 4. And Ram Bilas Singh, S/o Jatau- Siagh, aged about 35 years, resident ofviUage- Aoiu-ijour, Post Office- Khutgaon, Tehsil- Kunlnui, P.S. Farsa Bahar, District-Jashpur (C.G.). The State of Chliattisgarh, fhrough the Secretary Department of Panchayat, Mantralay, D. K. S. Building, Raipur (C.G.). The Secretary, Departanent of School Education, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, Jashpur (C.G.). The Chief Executive Of&cer, Janpad Paachayat Paraabafaar, Distnct- Jashpui'. Zila Shiksha Kendra, Rajiv Gandhi SIuksha Mission, Jashpur (C.G.). Writ Petition No. 715 of 2004 Petitioners 1. Ku. Gayata-i, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra Barhaaiuda Gram Paachayat Uparkachhar. 2. Mohau Sai, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra Jorkotola Gram Panchayat Bhagora. 3. Paakhrasius, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Indira Nagar Gram Panchayat Kaudaibahar. 4. Jamit Sai, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Indira. Nagar Gram Panchayat Kolhenjharia. 5. Niraiyan Mmj, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra Miindadeepa Gram Paachayat Tuinla. 6. Munku Ram, Shiksha Guaraatee Kendra, Anwala Nagar Gram Panchayat, Babusajbahar. 7. Ku. Parmila Parma, Shiksha Guaraatee Kendra, Negitoli Gram Panchayat, Matipabadchliarra. Respondents 10. 11. 12. 13. Versus 1. to3. 5. 8. Smt Nilo Kujur, Shiksha Guaraatee Kendra, Negitoli Grain Panchayat, Farsabah.ar. 9. Bnjinolian. Sai, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Palepkhaaa Grani Pauchayat, Dumariya. Bileshwar, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Malikulpara Gram Paachayat, Ambakachhar, Dashrat Sai, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, UpartoU Grain Panchayat, Bhagora. Sadai Ram, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, UraoatoU Grani Panchayat, Sundru. Baleshwarram, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Pakrideepa Oram Panchayat Tumla. State of Chllattisgarh Through fhe Secretaiy Department of Panchayat Mantrataya, D.K.S. Buildmg, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Secreteuy Department of School Education, D.K.S. Buildiag, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The CoUector, Jashpur (C,G.). 4. The CIiief Executive Officer, Jaapad Paachayat Farsabahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.). 5. ZUa Shiksha Kendra, Rajiv Gaudhi Shiksha Missin, Jashpur (C.G.). Single Bench: Hqn'ble Mr. Justice Satteh K. Agnihotrl. Shri Artm. Sliukla, Advocate for fhe petitioners. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Paxiel lawyer for fhe Respondents No. 1 Miss Sharmila Suighai, Advocate for fhe Respondents No, 4 and ORAL ORDER (13th January, 2006) Tfae fottowmg order'ofthe Courtwas passed by Satish K.Aguillotri, J. -,-s ', 's 1. Since fhe controversy iavolved m Writ Petition No. 3441 of 2003 (Ram. Bflas Stagh Vs. State of Chhattiggarh & ofhers) and Writ Petition No. 715 of 2004 ( Ku. Gayatri & ofhera Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) is one aad fhe same, bofh the petitiona are being disposed .ofby ttiis conunon order. 2. The petitioner iu W.P.No. 3441 of 2003 and 13 petitioners m W.P.No. 715 of 2004 were appoiated initially, as Guruji under Education Guarantee Scheme (Aanexure R/l). Their services were discontiaued in January-Februaiy, 2000. The petitioners were agaia considered and appointed on 13.3.2000 (Annexure P/7 ia W.P.No. 3441/2003) ia various Gram Panchayats, detaits ofwhich are as under:- of Name of NameofViUage Petltloner Educatioa Panchayat Guaraatee Center Ram Bilas Indira Nagar Singh Barhamuda Khutgaon Petitioner ia W.P. No.3441/03 Uprkachar Petitioner No. l in W.P.No. 715/04 Bhagora Petitioner No. 2 ia W.P. No. 715/04 Kaadai Bahar Petiti.oner No. 3 inW.P. No. 715/04 Kolhcn Jharia Petitioner No. 4 inW.P. No. 715/04 Niranjan Minj MundaDeepa Tumla Petitioner No. 5 ia W.P. No.715/04 Ku. Gayatri Mohaa Sai f PaaJdirasius Jamit Sai Jorkotola Indira N^ar IndiraNagar Muitku Rain Ku, Paiina Smt, Anwla Nagar Pannila NegitoU Neelo NegitoU Babu Saj Bahar Petitioner No. 6inW.P. No. 715/04 Mati Pahad Charra Petitioner No. 7mW,P. No. 715/04 Farsha Bahar Petitioner No. 8 iuW.P. No. 715/04 Kujur Brij Mohan Sai Pale Pakhaua DumaTia Petitioner No, 9 iu W.P. No.715/04 Bileshwer Malikulpara Amba Kachar PetitiDner No. 10 iaW.P. No. 715/04 Bhagora Petitioner No. 11 in W.P. No. 715/04 Sundroo Petitioner No. 12 ia W.P. No. 715/04 Tumla Petitioner No. 13 m W.P. No.715/04 The services of the petitioners in bofh the petitions were Dashrafh Sai Upartola Uranvtoli Baleshwer Ram Pakrideepa Sadai Ram termiaated vide order (^ated 22.3.2003 (Aiuiexure P/2 filed in W.P.No. 3441/2003). Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed coiumon appeal under section 91 ofthe M.P./C.G. Paachayat Raj Adhmiyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act, 1993') before the Collector, Jashpur, which was registered as Appeal Case No. 28/A- 89/2002-2003. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 5.7.2003 by fhe CoUector, Jashpur, holding that fhe unpugned order dated 22.3.2003 passed by fhe Chief Executive OfEicer, Janpad Panchayat, Farshabah.ar was legal aud vaUd. Being aggrieved the petitioners have ffled these two petitions under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitutibn of India praying that fhe impugned order dated 5.7.2003 (Aiuiexure P/l in W.P.No.715/2004) aad oiderdated 22.3.2003 (Annexure P/2 ffled in W.P.No. 3441/2003) be qiiashed. 7, Leamed corunsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat fhe senrices of fhe petitioners have been termiaated pursuant to the intemal enquuy held by a Conunittee headed by Block Education Officer, in a casual inanner withoiit considering fhe facts of each and eveiy case individuEdty. The enquiry report has been filed as Aanesnire R/2 iaW.P.No, 3441/2003. Shri P&akaj Shrivaslava, learaed panel lawyer appearfng for the State and Miss Sharmila Suighai, leamed counsel appearmg for the Respondent No.4 Janpad Paachayat, Farshabahar and Respondent No.5 Zila Shiksha Kendra, Rajiv Gandhi SIuksha Mission, Jashpur submit that the appointment of Gurujis was under the Education Guarantee Scheiue wherein it was clearly provided ffaat for a groiip of40 persons one teacher be appointed and for a group of 25 persons ia Scheduled area one teacher be appointed. It is contended fhat fhe appoiatnient of fh.e teachers were coutraiy to provisions of Rules and reservation poUcy. In sorue cases appointnients wcre ruade withoiit there being any school or student It is furfher urged that the Enquiiy OfiBcer has coaducted a detafled enquiry before arrivuig to the conclusion that the entire selection process of fhe appoiataient of fhe petitioners be quashed. I tiave heard leanied counsel for the parties and perused fhe docuiuents appended to the petition as well as to the retum ffled in. both the petitions. On perusal of the Enqiury Report it is evident fhat fhe enquiiy has been conducted ia veiy casual and cursory inanner. The enquiry iadicates fhat woinen reservation has not beea foBowed wifhout iadicating what was fhe reservation ^^^•s^ 6 8. and how it should be appUed. The entire enquiiy has been conducted ait one place i.e. ia the office of the Assistaiit Conunissioaer, Jashpur and no opportuiuly was given to any of fhe conceraed petitioner or ofher conceraed of&cers. The enquiry conducted by fhe coiumittee is contraiy to all fhe principles of natural justice and does not coinply wifh the requireinents of holdiag an enquiry. As such fhe unpugaed oiders tenuinatiiig the service offhe petitioners is bad and deserves to be quashed. Ttie petitions are aUowed. The iinpugned order dated 5.7.2003 (Annexure P/l in W.P.No.715/2004) and order dated 22.3,2003 (Annexure P/2 ffled in W.P.No. 3441/2003) are qiiashed aad set aside. However, fhe respondents are at Uberty to take any appropriate steps as pennissible under fhe law. No costs. Certified copy, as per ^ules. Sd/- Satish K. Agiuhotri Judge