(:Fq ‘ r noo157941 X IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR C.G. '\ '\ WRIT PETITION NO. 186 1 /2005 :ETITIONER ' \ 1 Jhasketan Prasad Jaiswal, S/o Shri Dubraj Singh Jaiswal, aged about 37 years, Working as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Tandipar, Tahsil Sarangarh, 4 ~ x District Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS l. State of Chhattisgarh, Thrugh- The Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Deputy Directo, Panchaat and Social Welfare, District Raigarh (C.G.). 3. Shri Daulararn Jaiswal t EX. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Tadipar, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). 4. Gram Panchayat, Tandipar, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 @. E ' AT WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 [r227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITIWRITS, c ORDERlORDERSLORlAND DIRECTION l DIRECTIONS IN THE NATUR OF MANDAMUSICERTIORARI, OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NURE. s 1. ETIT PARTICULARS OF THE PIONER: RESPONDENTS o r y n WV H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1861 OF 2005 PETITIONER Jhasketan Prasad Jaiswal Versus ‘RESPONDENTS 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 Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Ramakant Pandey, Advocate for the respondent N953. Shri S.K. Dadsena, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 6‘“ day of April, 2010) 1. Sole contention of the petitioner is that the order dated 15.12.2004 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Director (Panchayat) Chattisgarh, Raipur, whereby the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Director for considering the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary) was made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the‘petitioner, as the petitioner was neither arrayed as a party/respondent nor any notice was issued by the Director (Panchayat), as is eVident from the order dated 15.12.2004. Thereafter, the Deputy Director, on remission, by order dated 30.04.2005 (Annexure P/1) without further affording opportunityof hearingkto the petitioner, quashed the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretary). Thus, this petition. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi on 27.102003 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, he was declared as Panchayat Secretary by order dated 13.01.2004 passed by the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raigarh. §\ 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that the Sarpanch and the Upsarpanch were impleaded as party/respondents and according to the learned counsel, it is not necessary to implead the petitioner by name as party/respondent because he was working as Panchayat Karmi/Secretary. 4. The contention of respondent No. 3 is frivolous and deserves to be rejected. On perusai of the order, it appears that one Bolbahara, who was former Sarpanch, was impleaded by name and Upsarpanch Ramkaii was also impleaded by name. Even if the Gram Panchayat, Tandipara, was impleaded through its Sarpanch and Upsarpanch, this is not sufficient opportunity, as the question of the appointment of the petitioner was under challenge before the Director (Panchayat) as well as before the Deputy Director. By not impleading the petitioner as party/respondent to afford an opportunity to defend or put fonNard his case before the authorities, the orders dated 15.12.2004 and 30.04.2005 are bad and vitiated. 5. For the reason mentioned hereinabove, without expressing any ’opinion on the merits of the case the orders dated 15.12.2004 and 30.04.2005 are quashed for want of impleadment of necessary party i.e. petitioner as party/respondent. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/L . . Satish K. Agnihctt‘i k Judge Gowri