INTHE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATE ,QF CHHATTISGARH_AT_BILASjVR (/ WRIT PETITION N0,,4-/63 /2004 u PETITIONERS: M»^'^ 1) Chanakya Lal Yadav S/o- Late Puran Lal Yadav Village - Sorar, Block - Gurur Distt- Durg -(Chhattisgarh) Ku. Dipti Chaturvedi D/0- Mohan Chaturvedi R/0- Villag- Kothiapar Block- Gurur, Distt- Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3) , €v>:^f^ .J-il^. y.^^ ^€^' ^•^•x.. i?'"'"-.^""^^ ^•^^s^. /y' ^ ^' '^ •.-L^^ i;'4.;i^ v^ ^-^w'^.y -<-'^^. Ku. Chetana Sahu D/0- Chova Ram R/0- Village-Chirpari Block - Gurur, Distt- Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4) Lekhram Sonboir S/0- Prem Singh R/0- Village, Jagrara, P.0.- Jamarua Block- Balod, Distt- Durg (Chhattisgarh 5) Roman lal Vishwakarma S/0- Khemraj R/0-Village, Parsada, P.0.- Jamgaon Block- Balod Distt- Durg (C.G.) 6) Ujjain Kumar Sahu S/0- Ram Prasad R/0- Village- Hohtara P. S. - Jeungaon Block- Balod Distt- Durg (Chhattisgarh) 1 Ai 7) Rajendra Sahu S/0- Dashorath Lal R/0- Villag e Sankara P.O- Karaibhadar Block- Balod Distt- Durg (C.G.) <p 8) Sohan lal Gajendra S/0- Chhannu lal R/0- Village & post- Barhi Block- Balod Distt- Durg (Chhattisgarh) 9) Dhal Singh Sahu S/0- Khallari Block- Dondi Distt- Durg (Chhattisgarh) - VERSUS :- RESPONDENTS:- ..^s^^Sk-''" .. K!iP"f^4 i.y:i?y~'"t'": A 1) State of Chhattisgarh Throiigh- Secretary Departaent of Panchayat Evam Gramin Vikas (Mantralaya) D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2) Secretary, Departaent of School Education (Mantralaya) D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3) Chief Executive Officer Distri.et- Panchayat Durg (C. G. ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR TSSUANCE- Op WRIT/WIRTS ORDER/ORDERS. DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS. ± "65; AI-HC—7E 311^1^ h-fM 'tTaTI 5RTq?T ^^jcti SSt' t8!;<tawti*^iSb. ^••^^•^tyy'^W% T^ "41-41(rl <4, QWWW, lejdl'My IrJ.P. ^165/2-01 sn^I •q^T (Tjqi^^:;) 'FRITWtrfs? 3!I*?I ^^FCT^ ~^1^i ^f fs^i ^f^^p ^3TfgTI3II^T 7.2.2005 Shri Virendra Sharma, Cou^isel for tbe petitioners. Shri 5andeep Oubey,Panel Hedrd on admission. The contention of learned session 1996-97 and thereafter 1 of the ssssion 1997-98, fresh| i Tatha 5eva Ki Sharte) l^ Lawyer for the State. Counsei for the petitioner-s is that the petitioners were given appointme^ts as '5hiksha Karmi' for -the academic 997-98 temporarily. Learned Counsel for the p^titioners submits that after completion fippointments were made under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh(4hhattisgarh) Panchcxyat Shikshc Karmi iyam, 1997. Petitioners participated in the process of fresh appointm^its but they were not appointed. The petitioners are aggrieved by •t^ie non-selection in the said process. Petitioners have filed a copy of ti^e rules as Annexure P-2. A bare perusal of the rule^ shows that there is also a provision of appeal vide Rule 12. appeal against the order passed under provisions of •rfie Adhiniyam. The word fy' ^ Rule 12 provides that the these Rules may be made as per "Adhiniyam " has been defined in it indicates that "Adhiniyam" i^eans 'Madhya Pradpsh Panchaygt Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (No.l of 1994)'. definitlon wf. Ifee ciause vide RuleTI^ and J Bllli ::'aH:' ':*' 3 ? ::.A^ ^ llilft1'31" .'ssr-^j'iiid'1!, Ti1yi<o, fsKtiyy A-..AA£A)I^....................... <ti!<i(<-t<iii •<ii<ni fl fs^6 S.V4W-1. On the basis of these pro|/isions, it can easily be inferred that a person dissatisfied with the ord^r passed un<ter the rules, is to file an appeal under the provisions of A4+ 1994. Under the Act 1994, the Rules %-^ -b^5i'»naol> ^ (Appeal dnd Revision Rules) have been ftledr. Therefore, the petitioners are having alternative remedy to f\\s an appeal against their non-selection under the aforesaid rules. While dictating this orde^", learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of this p^tition with a iiberty to fi!e an appeal before the approprmte authority. The aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is not opposed by the State counselj Accordingly, •Hie prayer is c^llowed. The petition is dismissed ^s withdrcwn with a liberty in favour of the petitioners to file ssppeals t^nder the rules before the appropriate With the aforesaid liberty the petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge !i.<lffi?2.FS/350—12/2000--50,000. i71: