4' Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: B1LASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5150 of 2008 Ku. Rupa Kumari Rajwade, D/o. Shri Rambilas Rajwade, aged abput21 years, resident of RT1 Colony, Quarter No.1035, Bishrampur, District Surguja (CG). RESPNDENTS Vs. 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, though the Secretary, Panchayaf and Social Welfare Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CG). 2. The Director, Directorate of Panchayat and Social Welfare, Raipur (GG). 3. The Collector, Surguja (CG). 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Surajpur, District Surguja (CG). 5. The Chairman, Standing Committee of Gensral Administration, Janpad Panchayat, Surajpur, District Surguja (CG). (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Shailendra Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon this 15' day of September, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 6-9-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.4, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Surajpur, whereby the appointment order ofthe petitioner was cancelled . " 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is a case where the petitioner has been condemned without affording an opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show cause notice. 2) Be that as it may, this is not one of the exceptional cases, wherein this court should grant indulgence . ignoring hierarehy of statutory authorjties as provided under Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 3) This court inWrit Petition(s) No. 4597 of 2008 (Chandrika Prasad Sahu and others Vs. State Qf Chhattisgarh & others), decided on 28 August 2008, relying on various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question of atternative remedy, observed that "normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction^except when a very strong case is madeout formaking a departure. 4) In view of theforegoing, without expressing any opinion on merits, the petitioner has not made out a case for making a departure from normal rule of exhausting the hierarchy of appeals available under the statute. Thus, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative statutory forum that may be available to the petitioner under the provisions oflav^, if so advised. ^Sd/- : Satish Ig.Agnihptri ; ^Judge