URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU WRH’ PETlTiON No. 1405 m 2904 Deo Singh Koram VRS EUS Santosh Ku’mar & Others. } s for rnumement ofjudgment and Grder can 29/03/2909. i I i l x HIGH CO R _ If Pét pno / 32 H§GH COURT GF CHHM‘HSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON Na. 1405 o 2004 Deo Singh Karam, aged 23 years son of Shr Panch Ram Koram resudent of vmage Kurma TehSI! Janggir mstnct Jamglr Champa (Chhattlsgarh) VERSUS : 1. Santosh Kumar, aged 33 yeays, son of Shri Jhadu Ram Gond, resfident of viiiage Baloda, Tehsi! Janjgir Di§trict Janjgir—Champa (Grhamsgarh) . Gram Panchayat Kurma ihrough the Sarpanch Smt Badrlka Bai Mahant, resident of vinage Kurma, Tehsi! Janjgir, District Janjgir—Champa (Chhattisgarh) ‘ Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kurma, resideni' .of viHage Kurma, Tehsii Janjgir Bistrict Janjgir-Ghampa (Chhattisgarh) 4. Sub Diwssonai Officer Jamgir, District i Janjglr-Champa (Ghhattisgarh) W%iT PE‘THON UivDER ARTICLE 2 THE CONsTlTUTiON OF iNDiA - SB Han’bie Sim Satish K Agmhom J Preseijit: . $hri Somnath Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. shri P.K.Patei, Advocate for the respendent No. 1. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 4. PETFHONER “x ‘ RESPONDENTS (Passed on 24%ay of March, 2009) By this petition, the petitiener seeks ta chaiienge the iegaiity and 1 vaiidity of the crder dated 13.04.2004 (Annexute P/l) passed by i the Sub Divisional Officer, (for short ‘t’ne SDO’) ianjgir, Chhattisgarh : in Revenue Case No. 4E/A—89-2003-04, viliage Kurma, whereby the 1 SDO has canceiied the appointment of the petitioner and ordered to v appoint respondent No. 1 in his place. The facte. in brief are that the petitioner beiongs to Soheduied Tribe i, (for short S?) category. The respondent No.3 invited appiieations i for appointment on the post oi Contract Teachers, Ciaes iii for the > academic session 2003-2004 for ST category. The petitioner ; submitted his application and wee successfui in interview. Thus, the petitioner was seiected for appointment on thexsaid post. The , respondent No. 1 chaiienged the appointment of the petitioner i before the SDO in Revenue Case No. 46/A-8E-2003-04, Viiiage . Korma. The petitioner was not a party in the said proceedinge. ,/ - i 3. I , Ehe teamed SDG, vide its order ciated L3.04.2004, held that there ‘ w ‘ éwas same forgery and oveMriting in the records pertainirig to gappointment of Contract Teachers, anq the petitioner has wrongly ‘ ‘ ibeen seiected for the said post in factJ the respondent No. 1’ who J ‘ was shown to be absent In the mteme was very much present m V the interview and secured the highest Lnarks and accordingty, the appointment of the petrtnoner was cancelied anc} the respondent \lo i was directed to be appomted m hrs piace 4; ‘ Shn Verma teamed counsel appearing for the petrtroner would l submit that the Impugned order ls arbitrary, illegal and contrary to l law as the petrtloner against whom the order has been passed was not a party an the proceedings Thus the petitioner has been 1 deprived of the opportunity to put forth his case. l: l l Per contra, Shri P.K.Patel, counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri ’i l ‘ fankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 4, t would submit that the order paesed by the 390 is proper arid 'reasonable. 6. 3 None appears on behalf of respondent No."2 and 3. However, vide return filed by respondent No. 2 and 3 supports the case of the g petitioner. ?. Be that as it may, it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner for the academic sessions 2003-04 on contract basis was t ~ abruptly cancelled on the ground of seriousaliegations. The SDO, without impleading or issuing notices to the petitioner to put forward his case,'aliowed the appeal tiied by the respondent No. 1.‘ 8. Thus, the order impugned (Annexure P/i) is vitiated, deserves to be E and is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the SDO to decide the entire case afresh after affording oppod‘unity of hearing to all i the parties in accordance with law on its own merits as . expeditiously as possdoiei preferably within a period of three months. The petition is accordingiy aliowed. No order asto costs.