. , /,, p. i\ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTIBGARH: BILASPUR Bes&eh: Ho^ble K. J. WMT PBTITION N0. 3515 OF 2003 Petitioner Versus Respondents :1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Rup Narayan Saliu S/oShri Saliaai Rain, Aged aboiit 23 years, R/o vmage Chantipall, Tahsil Malkharouda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Paiichayat & Gram Vikash Vibhag Mantralaya^ D,K.S, Bhawan, Raipiir. CoUector, Jaajgir, District Jaajgir-Chainpa (C.G,), The S.D.O. Sakti, Distt. Jaiijgir-Chainpa. Graia Paachayat, Chantipali, Through its Sarpaach-Nimial Sahii S/o Kidtrani Sahu, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village ChaiitipaU, Tahsil Malkharouda, Distt. Janjgir-Chanipa (Chliattisgarh). Chief Execntive Officer, Janpad Pa-nchayat, Malkharouda, Distt, Jaiijgir-Chaiupa. Block Edzication Officer, Vikaskhand Malkharounda, Tahsil Malkharouda, Distt Jaiijgtr-Chainpa (C.G.). Nand Kursiai' Chaiidra S/o DharaBilal Chaadra, Age.d about 25 years, R/o ViUage Kalaoii, Post Malkharouda, Distt. Janjgu'-Chaiapa (C.G.). Preseiat: Shri Maiioj Paranjape, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Alok Bakshi, Govemnient Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 6/State. Shri Raabir Siagh Marhas, counsel for the respondent No. 5. None for the respondents No. 4 aad 7. ORAL (2nd February, 2006) 1. The present petition ffled under Ai-ticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India unpugns the order dated 30.9.2003 (Aunexure P-14) passed by fhe CoUector, Janjgir-Chajiipa ui Case No. 26/A-89/23/2002-03. 2. The facts ia nutsheU are that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Kamri vide. order dated 8.9.2003 (Annexiire P-9) issued by flie respondent No, 4. The appoiatment was done under the provisions of Sh&sha Saaivida Shikshak (Appoiatmeut and Service) Rnles, 2001. 3. The petitioner applied along wifli several ofher persons for appoiatment to the post of Shiksha Karmi at Gram Paiichayat Chaiitipali, Block Matkharouda, District Janjgu'-ChaBipa, The petitioner alone was selected aad appoiated vide order dated 8.9.2003. 4. Clause-3 of the terms aad conditions of the appouitineut order provides fhat the service of flie petitioner was termiaable. wifli one niouth's notice or one nionth salary in. Ue.ii ofnotice. ff. 5, The respondent No. 7 beiiig aggrieved by his non selection on fhe post of Shiksha Kaeiri, made a coniplauit to the Siib Divisional Officer (Revenue), Shal€:ti. The coinplaiiit was under consideration before fhe Siib DMsional Officer (Revenue), Shakti, when the Collector, Jaajgir-ChaDipa exercisiag his power under fhe provisions of Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Paiichayats (Appeal Aiid Revision) Rziles, 1995 wifhdrew the case pendiag before tihe Siib Divisional Officer (Revenue), Shakti on his own niotiou to his office, 6. The Collector Le, respondent No. 2 by his order dated 30.9.2003 (Annexure P-14), after hearuig the com.plamant and witlioiit afforduig aay reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner qnashed fhe order of the appouitineiit date.d 8,9.2003 passed ni favour ofthe petitioner on the grouiid that fhe com.plaiaan.t uaoiely Naad Kuniar Chaiidra has obtained xnore marks than ttie petitioner. 7. Be fliat as it inay, adniittedly, the petitioner was not given aiiy show cause notice before the date of termiaation as contemplated iii fhe appouitment order itself. Even otherwise, if Biry order is passed prejudicing fhe iaterest of a person, fhe person is entitled to opportunity of hearing, faciUtatuig the person concemed to piit his case before any order is passed. 8. In tlie present case, iiiterest of flie petitioner has certaiiily been prejudiced by order dated 29.9.2003 passed by tlie CoUector," District Janjgir-Chaiapa. The petitioner has not been afforded aay opportunity ofhearing to put his case. ^E^^-^^-^-^^^ Bablu 9, For fhe reasons stated above, I am of fhe ophiion fhat the impugned order dated 30.9,2003 is bad and deserves to be qnashed. The petition is acconlmgly allowed. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge