<Q cSinirsiiBi ESijSrtfth; SsHyi^ o^o.^si! IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No.: 2^66 /2011 PETITIONER 1)' Prakash Chandra Sahu, S/o Santosh Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Gram Baigandih, District Mahsamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ,,y' •fsP\£)_>''~ .., ^•^.A^^2'.-y' ^yy' s<^- •'ygy' 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Develoment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2)~ Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) through its Chief Executive Officer. ^ 3) Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4)^ Lalit Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Tulsiram Verma, through G.P. Hardware, Amera, Tahsil, Pallari, District Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA llil i^ ^^ 731 '<{WWi, ®Tll-a<ie,[a|C1l'H<j,< *11*1CTI WWfl 1^..:.?..-L^.2^C...:..^^W "TIT.2t)0 SflI^I TI?^ ('jql^q'i'l) ^i !<;•<!<* '?WT 4<1^1 St)*1 ^wlW flfen <MI^ SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohari 13-06-2011 Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, co^nsel for the petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panel L^ advance copy. The pet'rtioner hasfiled this p^ respondents No.2 and 3, in not ^ (tition aggrieved by inaction on the pan: of t)pointing the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - 1 in the sufcyect of h/laths, even though according to the petitioner, he was included in th of the candidate above him, he was i^ merit iist and on account of non-joining ^ntitted for consideration of appointment. under the Rules of 2007, i deem it <*1^4l-l ^WV^ ^ fs^ <Pq^K iTsiRinsn^i Shrivastava. j. wyer for the State/respondent No.1 on Learned counsel for the petiti(>ner submits that as the candidate above the petitioner nameiy Lalit Kumar V^rma did not submit his joining, by virtue of merit list, the petitioner was entitlejd to be appointed. The District Education Officer, Mahasamund vide his mehio dated 5/2/2011 informed the Chief Executive Officer that Lalit Kumar Nferma has not joined, but even then, no order of appointment has been pass^d in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has aiso m|ade representation to the Coliector, Mahasamund, who happens to be t|»eappeliate authority-under the Rulesof C.G. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (ntecruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 (for short" the Ruies ofl 2007), buttill date, no decision has been taken. Taking into consideration th|e grievance of ttie petiUoner and also taking into consideration that the Co|lector is a constituted appetlate authority xpedieni to grant the petitioner liberty to prefer detaiied appeal / representat|on before the Coltector, Mahasamund in continuation of earlier representatit>n made by the petitioner on 5/2/2011 wri.i.. ^,<n asiiwi, (wiroira—FS/140—2/2011—1,SO,000. ~T ^ *11*1<11 a»*<l<ft 's^ '*iiqi<nA|, a-al'y'is, fsi<liiyy,< ^_...lAj.f-Q.^O^^?l^/" ^^...................................................^^, ^Q^ sn^i 'T^? ('^f3^T) an^i ^i R-fi* 3^^ Stt*liq> Dseptt WIBIT ^iftti 31)^91 ^ (Annexure P/7). In case, such s| pet'rtioner to the Coliector within decide the same expeditiously question of limitation and keeping] With theaforesaid observal 'nillcilli imvS 'tl fs^S <(a|<<;l< i?affiman^i s|n appeai / representation is made by the |one month from today, ttie Coliector shatl ^n its own merits wifftout going into the |in view the validity period of select iist. tions, the petition is finaily disposed off. Manui."*'^msb""s"" Jud&e !<iiy'fl*t ^^ ^<m<-i^, Ti^i^'iK—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. 4