^' l-y INstl<EM»G:l^£iUiRt^eai-IMilM^S^AI^ija ,:.; •; '•'^IviijiiiiilBMiiiffi PETiaiSNERi ^ \<Mn^w^anta ,^^^'}B^g!f^F ^.af •'^ ;^tan: ;t^a(.AiManu;p:.^geaK::a:t)^it^;M^: . ysars,} ^Tesi£Jiejif'^C)f.:;^i;lla^e:i:^B;8ysaFa,; ; ^ ':^.Pof^^§Va^w3^gi'^'VaSris ':yaQjayK, !. ;^.~::DislH^'3anjgjr-@ln3m:|^s[@.G^^ •rr^^'^^^ VEttSUS RESPONDtENiI-S State Qf;©l'i!hatfisgiarh,;^' t:hEougli;£t-i^^eere!t:?i'y,lt3'T 'PaBetiayat;ianc!^8il|gt|;' ^,:;;: E)eMeil©|)n'iin}:';©e|gair!tmejgl:,'» :D^K.§;^Bl'iawan,'Rarp:ui-^|KS.@ ..•^: .n^^^. /.^iiy :.'.^i^^^' -^M^^^^.: ^-''i^i^^".1'',1-:. ^l.^^:;.:i'l-: ::;::^''^ >^" .<^»^*' i "<^ T'he;e6l]e<:t(i:r,;'3:ah|}gji-:i 1 •: District;Janjgir-CMani;pauEe.G.] GlMe^ExeGiiitive Oi:fK:ei-i,;ii i 3affl;pad::li:Pan£:l'iaya|,KNaw@g:arl!),' iMlftJSi^ ©;B|ampa;EC.i©;g. lOisitriet^ %,iEdi.i!eatBB .JaEijQir,j ShjaTtpa^g.O.O. DistriBfi DjstniGt! BNliiiiifiiBRlSillBHiBfigiI^iBI w^n£ffE!Tiii(8jNi6tiSSiMSEsni@Bi«ai)Si^27i'ffiB afflffiNM^BSMBJEBMiiBBSI raaFfjgjtf- •a SjiSi^ ISI iiij ;^'?ilS'3: itlHB M^jiF 'i.il! KSs •^s —78 ssSxtvi R'fi* ^l STT^FTs^t^ ^^ •<iwiv\ti, yfll'M'is, f°iMiy'j,< MS^.^.LS>.^:/..•^2005 311^1 TR^ ('^?f3^tl) wnw^ifeisn^f LE JUSTICE Mft. PRITINKER Dl 18-07-2009: Shri V.K. Pandev. coLlnsel for the Detitioner. <^h>-* A" n* Shri Ajay Dwivsdj, Dy Shn Sandeep UuDey, Learned counsel guestion of iaw invoived hedi Karmi Grade-!!! after aDDoinli there was irreauiarifry in the di Thls verv auestion calm in Ku. Punam & others vsj (2) CQLJ 366 while- allowiftg Court obsen/ed as under: calme " 22. The case^ of theselectiol foul 23. Appiyinfl facts of the p^ have aiready of the seiectiol i>/<Si j<uiiw<.<tss <*|<<!<'|41-1 ^1'raf 4 fs^S <Rt<s.i< ^siRnsiit?! G.A.forthsState. lcounsei Tor resoondent No. 4. earing for the petitioner submits that the ein as to whether the services of Shiksha ment can be cancelied on the ground that election Drocess. up for consideration before this Court State of C.G. & others reDorted in 2008 the case of Ku. Punam fsupra). this .on hand are not the cases of cancellation h process, the selection processes have v/H cikfi/UUi ii. not besn foujid vitiated including mast rtr<a<=anf /l?tc;a<= naving given] subseauentlv, the candidatds documents to cjbtain the appointments. of any ivscs'^Ui i ^ copying or mass irregulanties. i ne ^m y/harg ths SDDOiHtmSHt Or^SFS, sftsr ettect to, nave been canceiiea bn discoverv of some facts that some of in't/>i <-i s^.wt'M^.f^ iiCivi ^uwiajili.'tfw e^!sL^ ^ y^i^ •F*^y/^"L;^l K.ii^i,; aia su iviytt'bt the weli settied principles of law to the (ese."t cases, the respondersts/authdrities Fjrepared a second seiect 1,'st on tne oasis hs heid eariier. On scrutinv, most of the r>d place in the secorsd iist and their ?\t'9^& ^re continuing, as such. Some of the lirl nnf fsn^ ci nlssr-a in tho <=ff'r:^rid ll<st sfrGf appointments csndldates cod!' scrutiny on acc|ount or doubtTuiiy documents suDrriinea sy </ru;xrtfhtS- •i.. 'C—78 's^r "4i'4i<t'4, yxiiy'Ko, [sidi'y^ *1!*mT'ittHI^ 311^1'q^? ('yi^sl^) sn^r ^it f<-fi4i ^SH 37I^[ »*1 ;i>' TOtiw ^itei sn^i -•2-t— them.It is. therefore. have not foynd p!ace in an opportunity of he; truthfunsss of ths do' obtaining appomtmen appointments made (tiirected that the candidates who Ithe second. se!ect !ist be afforded fnng to establisn genuineness, 'fcumsnts submttcd bv themi for on the posts betore their eartier are canceiied." One Kumari Anjuiata Rathore) before this Hon'bte Court chailen(|ing oassed bv Coliector, Janigir-Champ^ disDOsed of 'ov this Court by order da|t the said wnt petition this Court has 1 Tiled writ petition No. 3848/2005 the order dated 29.7.2005 L The said writ petitlon was a!so Ited 15.4.2009. While disposing of ofclserved Learned counsel for the Detitit'i Detitioner is identica! to the case of K. impugned in both these cases are similar relief on the around of parity. With the consent of the Dartiefe disposed of in terms of the iudgment (S) No, 95/2008 (Ku. Punam-& otheijs aiso in terms of the order dated 3848/2005 (Kumari. Aniulata Rathol-i others). ^Rfci^li *ii4<rff ^ fsl<l <(^I'^K «fr3lfW3Ili?I In vievi/ of well settiel Drincsptes of law, this petition stands disposed of ir^ Consequentiy, M.(VV.)P| iftyvwr^ ^it E^a a Qs ia~t/t*-wi /r-l sv^vw:\ toiiu^ ui r\u< r'uaiciaiit ^Duju'KSt^ No. 9.2006 stands disposed of. tit'ner submits that the case of the 'i.u. Aniulata (Supra) as the order >ame and therefore he pravs for >. the oresent writ Detition is also dated 14.3.2008 passed in W.P. ^ Vs. State of C.G. & others) and 15.4.2009 passed In W.P.(S) re Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge