^ ^5 ^M 0 C ^< f3rT) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COTTRT OF CHHATTISGARH. RTT.A^PUR (C.G. WRIT APPEALNO. Ql. /200(8 ^ ^ APPELLANT ^ (PETITIONER)^ > 'Ty/ ^%./ .^%^" . f'^ ^y '<$^> ^•' ^^ VERSUS Ravindra Nath, S/o. late Sarad Chandra Nath, aged about 65 years, R/o. Hemu Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1. District Education Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Bengali Association, through its General Secretary, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Secretary, Bengali Association (School Section) Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER RULE 157 flOt OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES. 2005_AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.06 IN WRIT PETITION No. 2603/98 BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE. ^^ XI-HC-78 W^T^Tf^TF^ cW W^T ^HW *-1t*icil Sb+lich 3^r ^TCT^ra', ^TftepT^, ^(ni^y f^ . ^.:;. .'/.T. ... */>* ? * ^200'?- 311^1 ••151ch (^cii^st^T) ^cTTW^cTW^T DIVISION BENCH -: KON'BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO, ^g. C.J. & <1'BLE MR. SUNIL KUMAR felNHA. J. order dated 27.11.2006 passed in W.P.No.2603/1998 whereby without following the proced ^PlfoT^ HTR^ ^ fe^ ^R^ ^^rf^R'w^T [ • 07.02.2007 Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, coun^el for the appellanfc Heard of admission. This writ appeal has be^n filed by the appellant auestioning the by the tearned Singte Judge of this Court the writ petition fited by the peUtioner questioning his removai order w^is dismissed. Shri Bhatia argued that ire laid dcwn in The Chhattfsgaifi Ashasffkfya Sffikshan Saiftstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetwi <<a Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 and ChhaWsgarh Ashashhiya Sl^fkshan Sansttia (Adhyapakwi Taffia Anya Karamchariyon Ko l^adachyut Kame Sewa Se Hatane SambanfShi Prikriya) Niyam 1^83, the appellant has been removed from service. We have heard counset |for the appellant and have also perused the impugned order. The learned singte Judg^ pladng reliance on Annexure R-1 dated 11.4.1984 has held that the pro|visions of Secfion 6-A subsecUon (iii)(iv), sections 6-B and 6-C of tiie A<|lhiniyam, 1978 are not appHcable to the Aided Religious and Linguistic l^inority Institutions. We have perused the oijder (Annexure R-1) i^ued by the State Government in which it has be^n mentioned that the provisions of sub- section (iii) (iv) of Section 6-^\, section 6-B and section 6-C of the P.T.O. i^^ja3Sitt*si»'o*.o? XI-HC-78 trm^rr ai+iich 3^T ^I^K-I^, ^^^(0, fc|(-||^^< . t^lA- NG' 0| 4 ^ 200 7~ ^ll^l ^l^ch (li,c*i^<s<^) 3TT^T^T^J4) cW3TT^T$b^Jch > ^1\ ^ ^Rff^K ^rf^T 3TT^T cbl^?<"l41r1 WToTf ^ fe^t <RT|^I< ^)3Tf^:T3:TI^T Adhiniyam 1978 are not applica proceedings in respect of the wthout any force as the above |>te in ease of suspension and removal ^mployees of an Aided Religious and Lingujstic Minority Institution. Th|srefore, the contention of Mr.Bhatfa, is rovisions are not applieable in ease of the petitioner being an employ^e of Religious and LinguisAic Minerity Institution. Even after gMng due|opportunjty of hearhig t©the petittoner, he failed to appear before tiie Eri|quiry Officer, therefwe, ttie enquiry was proceeded exparte. The reasoifiabte opportunity was granted to ttie petitioner to participate the enqu|iry proceedings but he farfted to appear before the enquiry ofRcer, Ihat i^ parte. We are of the consideredl order impugned. Therefore, this | itself. why.the enquiry officer proceeded ex- opinion that there is no iHegallty tn the appeal is dismissed at th©motien stage Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O. (^^/ ' ^'