IN THE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0.im /2009 PET1TIONER rw; RESPONDENTS .._^ 1]" /cf. ^ ^f o' ^K ^<^J^< <v)' "^ c^:''vy^7- ^^ ^' 4] 5] Abdul Talib Khan, S/o. Late Nanmir Khan, Aged about 48 years, R/o. Village Telaidhar, Post Bataikela, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary,' Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Collector, Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (CG) B.P. Gupta, Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, Bataikela, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BSLASPUR WR{T_PET|TJOt4iSl,NQ,_12980F.20u9 PETiTipNER Abdul Ta!ib Khan ^ RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhsttisgarh & Others (vVrit petition under As'ticie 226 of the Constltutjon of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjape, counse! for the petitjoner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General forthe State. Shri Anand Shukia and Shri Parag Korecha. coynsel for the respondent No.5. QRDER (QRAU (Passed on thls 15th day of September, 2009) 1. Wlth the consent of iearned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition. is heard frnally. 2. Learned counsei appearing for the petltioner submlts that the impugned order dated 24-2-2009 (Annexure - P/1) has been passed on the representation made by Shri BP.. Gupta whereby the petltioner has been affected. It Is not an order passed on • adnninistrative exigency, It Is necessary that v^no Is Sikely to be affected shouid also be considered while consldering the representation of another employes. Contention of the tearaied counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submlts that in such cases the other empioyee who Is iikely to be affected elther by the flrst order or subsequent should be given an opportunlty and this order cannot be upheid from any angle. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 strongSy counters the submisslons made by the petitioner. On query, why It is an administrative order, it is submitted tnat slnce the petltioner has (p been declared as surplus empioyee, he shouid not be given opportunity of hearing. 5. The aforesaid contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 is not supported by any iegal provisions or judicjal pronouncements< The jurisdiction must be exerclsed after affording an opportunlty of hearing to either side. Thus, this contention Is rejected. 6. For the reasons mentloned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 24-2-2009 (Annexure - P/1) Is quashed and the Coilector, Sarguja, Is directed to reconsider the representatlon of the respondent No.5 after hearing the petitioner and other affected empioyees. Thereafter, appropriate orders, in accordance ^vith iaw and on Its own merlts, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, may be passed. 7. !n the resu!t, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indlcated above, with the aforesaid dlrection. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge