H!l 'Oi OF .P,.(S)No.4433;200; € 5. Aiam Sai, S/o Shri Budhram, Aged about 40 years, Panchayat Secretary, Vlilage Panchayat Dandgaon, Block - Udaipur, Tehsi! Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secreta"/, Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.S.) The Coitector, Sarguja (CG.) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Udaipur; Di Sarguja (C.G.) Vi!!age Panchayat Dandgaon, Through Sarpanch Block Udaipur, 1 ehsii Am&iKapur, Dist"ctSarguja(C.G.) Shri Ranjeet Singh, R/o Viiiage Dandgaon, Block - Udaipu.r, Tehsl! - Ambita District Sarguja (C.G.) The Sub Divislonai Officer, • Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G f^t ^r u^ iMra, Shri A.N. Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedl, Panei Lav/yer for respondents No.1,2 & 6 on ince copy. i007) i i»ita iiN Meard. The brief facts are that admittediy responcsent No.5 nameiy Shri Ranjeet Singh v/as appointed as Panchayat KarmilPanchayat Secretary' of the concerned Gram Panchayat vide order dated 2.11.35. He v/as piaced unde.r suspension vide order dated 12/8/99, on whlch, he made a representation and after having considered his representaiion, Deputy W.P. (S) No.4433/2007 Director (Panchayat), Disirict Sarguja vide order dated 10.04.2000, which was issued in pursuance of the order of the Coilector, revoked the suspension order. it is stated that prior to passing of the revocation order of respondent No.5 i.e. during the period of his suspension, the petitloner was appolnted as Panchayat Karmi of the concerned Grarn len the suspension order of respondent No.5>was o revoksd, he made many efforts for getting charge and ultimately, he fiied Vft/rit Petltion No.3760,'2004 and in the said VVrit Petitlon, ordsr dated 8 February 2007 was passed and it was directed that Dsputy Director, Panchayat. and Sociai Weifare and ChieT Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Udaipur to ensure compiiance of the order dated 10.04.2000 i.e. the revocation order passed in favour o? respondent No.5. After this, the concerned authorifry' issued memo dated 1 8/4/2007 (Annexure P/2), in compiiance of which the impugned order dated 17/5/2007 was issued by the Chiet' Executive Ofricer, Janpad Panchayat, Udaipur. These tuvo orders reiate to handing over of charge to respondent No.5 and stopping bank operation t'nrough the )etltloner. The petitioner is aggrieved v/ith the aforesaid action of the Neediess to say that the petitioner has no right on the said posi, because on the date of appointment OT the petitioner, the said post was not vacant for fresh appointment, as respondent No.5 was already there, though he was piaced under suspension and uniess the post wousd have been fallen vacant either on accoLi.nt of removai of respondent No.5 or on any such account, it v/as not avaiiabie for fresh appointment ofthe petitioner. The action of the authorities relating to handing over of charge to respondsnt No.5 and aiso stopping of t'ne bank operation through the petitioner is in no rnanner unjust or wrong. Thsre is no necessity of interference by thls Court in this matter, because the said action is in compiience of the order passed by t'ne Hiah Court in VV.P.No. 3760/2004 and the earlier order of revocation, \vhich v/as passed in favour of respondent No.5. The Detition has no merit and the same is dismissed at the J"L motion stage itself. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge