"^ >.^. %:..; ^^^y' E.C •(;;•?.-,'• ^. ^^^'^ 'o^"': ....^ !fet*t43t..^.. 'S"''-'' ^^y^:.:-.-- ~. ^ \^ (^ 7^70 .vSS"" ^ IN THEHON'BLE HIGHGOURTOFCHHATnSGARH M'BILASPUR PETmONERS : ^^ WRIT PETITION fSl N0. |f ^ 0/2009 / 1. RamlalThakur, S/oAthah Singh aged aboiit 37 years, R/o Ward np.13 XTdiyapara , Saraypali, Tahsil - Saraypali, Distt. Mahasamund (G.G.) /2, Rohit YadawS/o Gaurango, aged about 39 years R/o - Ward no. 5, Sanjay Nagar.Saraypali, Tah- Saraypedi, Distt. MsLhasami.ind (C.G.) ^'S.Ashok Samant Rai, S/o BhaktchaTan, aged about 40 years, R/b- wgu-d no. 9 Jhilinila, Saraypali^Tahsil - Saraypali, Distt. Mahasaniund (C.G.) A. Pitambar Bagh, S/o Sohan bagh I aged 26 year, R/oWard 11 Bajarpara, Saraypali, Tahsil -Saraypali, Distt. Mahasam.und (C.G.) ^5. Tejr^deep S/p jBansideep, age - 28 years, R/oWard No.IO Bajarpara [ Talisil—Saraypali,Distt.Mahasamundj /6. Bhagwano Deep S/o Heeralal, Age 23years,R/oWardNo40,Bajarpara Saraypali, Distt. Matiasaniund (C.O.) ! ft. F'ardeshi, S/o Ganga Rrasad, aged aboutgSyears, R/o Ward No.IO Bajarpara, Saraypali, Tahsil-SaraypaU Dtstt. Mahasainuiid (C.G.) -6. Punamlal, S/o.Laxnuprasad, e^e 19 .year, R/o Ward N6.11, Bajarpara Tahal -Saraypali, Distt.MaUasaniundi / 9. AnH Behara, S/o Laxiniram Behara age 24 year, ward no.IO, Bajarpara, Saraypali, Tah- Saraypali, Distt.- Mahasgtmond^C.G.^ ^ 10. Durpati Bai, W/o Bisambar, age 23 year, wardno.lOBajarpara,Saraypali, Tafa- Saraypali, Distt.- Mafaa.sann.mi^ \ ':^ RESPONDENTS ^ll. Mahesh Kumar Sona» S/o Duigar Sona, age 21 year, ward no.lO, Bajarpara., Saraypali, Tah- Sar^ypaU, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) / 12. Sunil Behara S/o Laxmirani Behara, age ?2 yeeur, ward no,l0 Ba^arpara, Saraypali, Tab- Sarsypsdi, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 1 IS.Biro Banchor, S/o Govind, age 41 year, ward no.IO, bajaTpara, Sara.ypali, Tah- Saraypali, Distt.- Mahasamund VERSUS ^l. State oE Ch.hattisgarti Nagariya Prash.asan 8s Vikas Vibhag, Mahtralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipi.u-.(G,G.) 2, Director, Na^ityaPiiashasan& Di^siori, Kaipur, Distt. Raipi.ir.^C.O.) ^3, Jouit Director, Nagriya Prashasan & Vikas Vibhag, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) ^4. Nagar Panchyat, Saraypali, Through its Chief Mi.uiicipal OiHcer, Nagar Panchyat, Saraypali, Distt. Mahasainiuid (IC.G.) / 5. Celleetor euas Dtstaet Eleetiea Officer,MahasaEnund<C.G.) ^6. CQllector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund(C.G.) WRn'PETI'NQMUNDERARTICLES2260FTHE CCTISTEnraKMt <M'I»DIA H1GM GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1140 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Ramlal Thakur & Others Versus RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh &0thers (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe ConstituUon of India^ Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms Sharmila Singhai, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General fprtheState. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, counsel for the respondent No. (Passed on this 12"'yayof January,2010) With the consent of tearned counset appearir^forthe parties, the petition is heard finally. The petitioners, by thjs petttion, challenge the legaiity and validity of the order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure - P/1), passed by the Collector & Distriet Election Officer, Maftasamund, whereby the appointment ordersof the peUfioners have been cancelied. Learned counsel appearing fdr ttie petih'oners would submit that the pet'rtioners were appointed vide orders dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P/6) on the posts of Peon& Sweeper. The appointment orders of the petitioners were passed by the Chirf Municipal Offlcer, Nagar Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, after followingdue process of selectton and in accordance with the constitutional schemeof emptoyment. Bv the impugned order dated 27.10.2CX38 (Annexure P/1) the appointment ord^rs of the petitioners were eancelled on ttie ground that the appointmente were made during ttie existence of the model code of conduct imposed Tor Assembly Electlon, 2008. Learned counsel appearing for the State woutd submitlhat the appointment ordere were passed on 10.10.2008, prior to tte enforcement of the model code ofconduct in Assembly Electioh BU 6. 7. Gowri 2008. as the model code of conduct was enforeed On 14.1Q.2008. Having heard leacned counsel for the parttes, having pefuseci the pleadings and docuiTients appended thereto, jt js eyidant thaf the impugned order dated 27.10.2008, eanceling Uia appointment orders dated 10.10.2008 was passed 6n the ground that the appointment of the petitionera were macte duririg the existence of the model code of conduct during Assembiy ElecUon, 2008. The State clarified the position that the model code of conduct was hot in existence when the appointment orders were passed on 10.10.2008. Thus, canceling the appointment orders was without any basis. Even otherwise, ttiere is no other reason for canceling ttieappointment orders, except thatthe appointmentorders were passed during the existence of the model code of conductjdue to assembly election. The respondente have failed to prove that the model code of conduct in assembty election was in existwice on 10.10.2008. !n view ofthe foregoing, the impugned order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in law. The impugned order|is accordingly quashed. The petition is altowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. -— - Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •'UI (H