IN3iaH!GH^OtJia:(^JimieA RE^^BH^S]^ li-L: WRITPETniONNO. %/0:< /2005 PETmONER Ram SagarSahM, S/oShriSahini Sahu,agedabout22years, OccupatiQn-Servicepresently workmgasSecretary;Grmi Panch^a^Amlipali"aa",TahsiI- SarangaA, DiStrict^Raigaili (G.G.) -VERSUS- RESPQNDSENTS ^ A^ ^w %f^^w ^f^ >* /Tf y u/ /y7 ^^"'7 :^^/ ^y ^" ^m /fl y- 1. State ofChhattisgaiti fteou^i the Secretaty, Pandiayat&. SociaIWetfare D^iartment, Mantialaya, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur<e.G.) 2. Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, District Raigarfr(C:G.) 3. ChiefExecutiw OfGcer, JanpadPanchayat, SaraBgaih, District Raigarfa (G.G.) 4. Gram PanchayatAmlipali "Aa" fhrough its Sarpanch, Amlipali, Tahsil-Sarangarii, Distnct RaigaA(C.G.) 5. Saipaiieh, ©ramPanchayat Amlipali 'Aa»Tahsil- Sarangarh.DistrictRaigarh 6, ShriSiScritI.<alSahu,Assistant Gram PatMshayat ©fficer,Gram v Panehiayaf^fflUpati'Aa', Tahsil^Sarangadi,District Raigarii<C.i0.) WmTHNimRARTIGE£22<6?22%©ETT[IECOmTITHTFI©]St^OFI EORISSTMNCE € A;SlJri'ABI^%®Jt;OREERS W^ ,Q ^y^:-;-.^ ^sy ^^. :?Y^S HI6H COURT OP CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionJ<to^21 <rf 2005 Petitioner Ram Sogar Sahu Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh andothers Single Bench: Hon'ble AAr. JusticeSatish K. Agnihptri. Present; Mr. 1.5. Sqhu, Advocate for thepetitioner. Mr. 5atish Supta, Dy 6ovt. Advocate for the respondents No. land2. - Mr. Sddeqa &ybey, Advocate for •t+ie Fespondents No. 3,4 & 5. OROER ith (Passed on 19Tn &ay of Febmary, 2007) The following order of 1+ieCourtw^ passi^ by Satjsh K. AOT'*^ ...^ 1. It is admitted facts of the case that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat fou'mi (5ecretary)yideorcler 25-10-2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by Smt. Binda 8ai, Sarpanch, ©r^mPw^ Janpad Pcuichoyat Saiw9wh, Oistrict Raigarh, who hoppens to be rolative of petitioner, laecprding t6 the petitioner, the step mother of the, petitioner. The petitioner was sei'ved a show cause noti<» dated 9-4-2(%)5, wherein the petitioner declined -to receive in presenee of two persons. The seconct dnow cause notjce dated 11-4- 2005 was ttlso isaed, wherem the p^itioner declined^ rswiy®in pre^nceof fourpersons(R-4-5/2). •^SS-^-^^sSt^^^^M^^S^i^^i^^S^S^-^ r 'lo 2. The specific query in the Aow cause notiee was asto whether the petitioner was appojnted in accordonce with Panchayat Raj Avam 6ram Swaruj Adhiniyam, 1993. 3. Leamed counsel qipearing for ttie petitioner submits that flppropriate replywasfiled/afterther^solutiond^ pcssed. The SrofflPanchayat byits resplutiondated 11.4.2005 (R-4- 5/3) held that th? appointment of -the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi (Secretapy) vms not in accordonce with -Hie sdieme. The petitioner being rekitive of the then Sar'panch Smt. Binda Bai was cpppinted dehors the niles/ as ft'amed^ consequently, the impugnect order dated 20-4-2005 (AnrK^yre P-8) wss pflSSed. Panchayat Karmi scheme fromed in-exercise of its powers under Section 17 (1) read wi-th under Section 69 of the Panchayat Raj Avam Srani Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 wasfromedbytheState6ovemment. Clause 4 of the scheme provides that for appojntment on •I'he post of Panchqyat Karmi (Secretqry), there shoukl be open invitation from alt eligible candiclates ai^ thejMid notjea be^^p^^ Gro.m Pcnchcqwt^, ^oir^^ P'anch Tahsil. The candidates were grunted 15 days time to make an application. This appointment was made dehors *he scheme as no ptjblifiation of notice was caused and no Similarly sityated candiclates were invited to nKike c^plication. It cppears thcrt 1+ie cypointmCTt of the petitionepj<^^^^ out of love ond affection d'lown by 5mt, Binda Bai, •the thenSarponch, who happensto be step motherof thepetitioner. <^; 4. It is wetl settled principie pf lcn»that the flippointment made dehors the Constitutionat scheme of employment i.e. open invitatiQn to alt simihrty situated canclidatesand properseleetion and furrtiernot in accorckince with taw does not confer any right on 1he employee. The petitioner's appointment is dehors the Pcuichayat ^wmi schenie and the Constitutioml scheme of theappQintmen*. Thus, the petitioner has no right to the above post. "\ 5. Secondly, the petitioner:was given sufficient oppor'tuhit/ of hearing before the ^ram ponchayat took a dtscjsion of cbted 11-4-2005 to removethepett*ionerfromthepostofpanchay'atl^mi(^cre*ary) on the ground of being itlegalappointment. The petitioner has not dvailed the said opportunity by pytting fonwrded his case before the Panchayat. 6. TheHon'bleSupremeCoyrt-inthecaseofIndraBhanuSaurVs. Committee, Mancgement of M.AA. Degree College an?! others {(2004) t • . • ' •• . 1 SCC 281} has obsepved in para 7, as under:- "7......»....... Ample opportunity 'w»sgnanted to ^he appeKant to place his case. We did not dioo^; to do so, B-jsonly a person who is reo^x^ willing to<^l<rf tbePplMrl^ oan make a gpievanceabout denial of any opportuni!ty ouid npt a person like the dppetlant whp desfijte |repeated 4 ^ •c» ./" Aiii-*^' opporhinities given and indulgence shown exhibited defiance andtotal indifferencetoextentiingcQoperation................" 7. In ano'ther case of D. Vinod Shivappa Vs. Nancki Bettiappa {JT 2006 (II) SC 187}, the 1-lpn'ble Supreme Court after considering the question of service of notice under Clai^ (c) of the proviso to Section 130-A of the Negotiabte InstTuments Act, 1881 held in paragrcphs 14 and 21, as under:- "14. Ifa notice is isaffid dnd served ypon tlw dF<W®r^t^ cheque, no contToverSy arises. Simitarly if the notice is refused by the addnesSee, it moy be preajmed to have heen served. This is also not disputed.......... "21................. It is no doubt true that •the receipt of the notice has to be proved, but as held by this Court coosistently, refusat ofnoticeamounts to service of notjce............... 8. Uwking fi^ all angjes, Ihe rempyal of the petitipner^ order dated^ 20-4-2005 (Annexur®P-8) is justond prppeffand does not call for any interference by the High Court' in exensise of its power ofjudicial review of theaclministrative ordep. 9. Thys, the writ petition is aGconJingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JSatish K.AgHihotri Judge 5ubhssh