.^^^?^r /t^A^ ^•_*'^Vy-Y-<v'? ;A/^S .^t"^' ^ ':..-<^.y-Y^v.^-*" .^^^" ^"" ^ ^^^^. ssj^yi O^" ) €5-^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (St N0. ZE7 /2010 PETITIONER Smt. Ranjana Patel W/o Basant Patel, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Barela, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ^ The State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2. The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ^'" 3. The Janpad Panchayat Mungeli through the Chief Executive Officer, District Bilaspur C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE QF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. / •••1'-1 "^' I^L ..-—-..I i^^-^ 1 '%... '^//. ^ K^ ^^^; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6169 OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Ranjana Patel Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. 1. 2. 3. ^ ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 6th day ofApril, 2011) Challenge in this petition, is to the order dated 29-3-2010 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the order dated 4-6-2005 (Annexure - P/2) was cancelled. The facts, in brief, are that the appointment order of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III in Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli, was cancelled by order dated 12-1-2006 (Annexure - P/4). Thereagianst the petitioner preferred a writ petition No.355 of 2006 (Smt Rajnana Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). During pendency of the said writ petition, the interim relief was granted on 25-1-2006. Thereafter, the said writ petition i.e. W.P. No.355 of 2006, wherein the order dated 12-1-2006 was challenged, was dismissed on 25-6-2009 for want of prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred MCC and writ appeal, however,the same were dismissed on 3-5-2010 and 17-6-2010, respectively. Thereagainst the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed by order dated 27-8-2010. Thus, the order dated 4-6-2005 has rightly been cancelled. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, as the basis of the impugned order is the original order dated 12-1-2006, which was challenged unsuccessfully in this Court as well as in the Supreme Court. As an upshot, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge