^ ^miiNif HICTiCOURr €)FCHHATTISGARH AI BILASPUR WRIT PKI'mON (S) Na 4053 of2008 A PETITIONER : Kumari Kanta Sahia, Aged about 30 years, D/o Late Shri P.K.Sahu, Shifcsha Karmi Varg— 2, R/o Aamapara, Kanker, Distt ~- KarikCT(C.G.) VER8US • RESPONDENTS : 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Throu^i - The Secretary. Panchayat & Gramin Vik^ Vibhag, Ministry, D.K.8. Bhawan, Raipur (G.G.) 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Distt Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agralhptri, J. Present: Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioiier. Smt. Smita Ghai, Paiiel Lawyer fortlie State/^respondeiitNo.l ORALORDER (Passed on 28th day of July, 2008) 1. The petitioner is qyestioning the legality and validity ofthe order dated 23.05.2008 (Annexure P/l), whereby the appointment offhe petitioner on the post ofShiksha Karmi Grade II, has been cancelled. 2. The appointment and service conditians of Shiksha Karmis are govemed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha K^rmi (Recruitment and Conditions ofServices), Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules, 2007). Rule 13 ofthe Rules, 2007 provides for statutory appeal against any order passed under fhe Adhiniyam. 3. Once the law has been settled by this Court, it is necessary that the petitioner, if aggrieved by terminatioti, should take recourse to altemative statutory fbmm i.e. appeal under the provisions ofRule 13 of the Rules, 2007. -2- The petitioner has approached this Court without taking recourse to j^ altemative statutory remedy available to her. This is i»t<me ofthe case wherein the High Court should interfere m exercise of its power under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, making (teparture from the normal mle of availing altemative statutory provisions first, befare coming to fhis Court. Thus. this petition is not maintamable on the ground of availability of altemative statutory remedy under the provisions ofRul@s«2007. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, Hberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to altemative statutory remedy that may be available to her, ifso advised. No orderasto costs. Comequently, I.A. No. 1, application fbr interim ralief^ also stands disposedof. — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit a»"^,