HIGH CSERT m: €HHATTE$QARW BIUQSF’UR ‘Wri't ?e‘é§$§m1 g3; We. 15?? of wag Petitioner Dha‘nanjay Jain, aged 26 years, Sic. Shri Kubai Singh Jain} omupatéan —- Shs‘kshakarmé Grade m at Saw Pr§mary Schco!‘ Pfv‘. 83, VikEage Panchayat Saver Janpad Panchayat Koyai!ibeda, District Utiar Bastar Kamker rfo‘ VEHage Taéukurra Kcrar, Tahsé! Pak‘nanjare, District Uttar Baés‘zar Kanker(CG). Versus Resgondems 1) Siaie of Chha'rtisgam, through the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Deveiepment Departmem, 3:43 Bhawan, Mamalaya, RaipumCG} ‘ .2) The Co5iector, DSstrlct Uttar Bastar Kanker (CG). 3) The Chief Execu‘tive Officer, Janpad P‘anshayat, Kayalibeda, District Uitar Bastar Kanker(CG), ; 4} The Chief EAecutive O‘§ic§r, Ziia Panchayat Utiar Bastar, Kanker {6(3) ducafisn Offzcer, Biack K0\a§§beda 1 DisLrict Uttar Bastar Kanker 91 !1: J (D E12 C)0 x IT! (Writ Peiiiion under Artime 225 cf the Cwstiiu‘iicn of 1mm.) SE: Hen’bia Mr, Satieh K. Agmhe'trfs, J. ?re§e§é; $hri JiteriEré_f\§éih NéESéT‘éb—unseWOr'thepneirfiérrg‘m g": m; AS. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advccate Gene: Efc-r the State. amt $§§ER {$aeseai ea '%-fi-29$3} With consent of the pariies‘ Erie metre: ie iaken up for hearmg finaiiy. 2} The peii'tioner was appcmted as ShEksha Karmi Graee iii en 22-9-2607 {Annexure p/‘2f; at Governmem Prrmary Scheci RV, 53, Viéiage Panchayat Saver Janpad Panchaya’r Koyairibeda‘ DismcrrUi'tar Bestar ,Kanker. AH of a sudden, Mhout affording an oepariuniry of hearing te the peté‘iicner) the appoin‘zment of fee peiitmnerwas canceiied by weer da‘ied 28-11-200? {Amexur Prr) by the Eieck Educamn 0f??cer, Keyaiieeee‘e . ) Learned counsei appearing for the pamioner swmits mat the questicn af %aw as to whether an employee ie enmed to Show cause notice even to examme ”the geeuinenees of ihe decumen‘t, has aiready been coneiderea‘ by we Court in a bafch of matte{s by judgment and order dated 14’“ March 2008 1n writ Petition (S) No. 9§i2008 (Ku‘ Punam & others Vs. Staie of Chha’iiisgarh & others) and other connected matters. Tms case is squareiy covereo on i'ne question of Kaw. 4) Shri As Kaohhawa‘na, Deputy Advocaie Generai submits that so far as the question of ‘aw is concerned, it has aireadv been considered and decided by t’nks Court in the above stateo Eodgment. However, the state be permitted to verify the “Facts of the case. 5) in view of the foregoing, the petition ie‘ aiiowed in the same terms Le, the petitioner shaii be afforcieo an oppoounity of hearing to estabiish .genuinenese, truthfuiness of the documents submitted by him for obtaining appointment on the poet and to put forward nis caee before his aooointment made eariier is canceiied. The impugned order dated 28-11—2807 (Annexure Pit) irt respect of the petitioner shaii not be given effect to, untii the direction mentioned hereinabove, is oompiied with. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotfi i z Judge ' , ‘ I 3 '