> / @tm . % o'v 'i‘ 1 l W.P. (S) NO. PETITIONER . / @fg /2009 Omprakash Sinha, S/o. Late Shri ’ Nandkeshvl/ar Sinha, Aged about 49 years, R/io. Saksharta ‘Marg, Kedarpur, Bhatti Road, Ambikapur, Distric‘t ~Su€guja (CG) VERSUS State of IChhattisgarh, Through: Secretar‘y,‘i Agriculture (Animal Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG) ~‘Husbandry) Department, D.K.S. ’ Director, ‘ Veterinary Services, 'l Deputy ~ Director, Veterinary ' Services, - Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Collector, Ambikapur, ~Surguja, ID. Singh, Assistant Veterinary Field OffiCer, Office 'of Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, . Amb‘ikapur; District Surguja (CG) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘District Surguja (CG) r WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF, INDIA —- HIGH?E6URT OF CHHATTfSGARH : BXLASPUR v (Writ! petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of indie) Single Bench ‘ Hon’bie Shri Satis‘i K Agnihotri J Pre§e§nt :- Shn Manol Paranjape, counsel forlthe petitioner ShnYS Thakur Dy Adv Generaifor the State ; Shn Anand Shukia and Shn Parag Korecha, counsel for the respondent No 5 ORDER (oRAL) i (Passed an +his 15‘“ day of Qeptewber 2009) ~ 1. ‘With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the ' petition is heard finaiiv 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24-2-2009 (Annexure P11) has been passed V on the representation made by Shri LD. Singh whereby the petitioner has been affected. It is not an order passed on administrative exigencv. it is necessarv that who is iikeiy to be affected shouid also rbe considered while consrdering the representation of another r empiovee Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits » acceptance. 3.‘ Learned counsel aopearing for the State submits that in such cases , the other employee who ts likely to be affected either bv the first order or subsequent should be given an opportunity and this‘order : cannot be upheidfrom any angle. 4. ,Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 strongty counters the-submissions made by the petitioner. On query, why-it is .\ an administrative order, it is sdbmitted that since the petitioner has \ ‘ i § i ' ‘WRtT PETlTlON (S) NO. 1856 OF 2009 , l PETlTlONER ‘ - Gmprakash Sinha ’ Versus RESP‘ONDENTS v State of Chhatlisgarh & Others been declared as surpius emp‘oyee, he shouQd not be given V opportunity af hearing. 5‘ ‘The aforesaid contention of iear ed counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 is not supported y any legal provisions or judicial pronouncements. The jurisdiction must be exercised after affording an opportunity of hearing to either side. Thus, this contention is’ rejected. . l V W ‘ : 6 For the reasons mentioned hereinajbove,. the impugned order dated 24-2-2009 (Annexure -— Pl‘l) is quashed and the Collector, Sarguja, Iis directed to reconsider the representation of the respondent No.5 after hearing the petitioner and other :affected‘ employees. Thereafter, appropriate orders, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipteof a copy Eof 3 this order, may be passed. 7. ln the result. the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, with the aforesaid direction. No order asto costs. , . : I __..._.. Sd/— _sh K.Agnihptri j. :Judge ‘ ' ' r Gowri . E 1 ’