^s.w'3- ;INaWE-?ieii(aMS:©MlliBOiKii;MilKFtlJS6ARM].^ -l.j,:'!WRITi!l'IMli :lNiyi^ ^2:ba5^^ <^^"" "il^^iittffiENfS' :PETIT®ONBR^'^^^^-:?:~^Aiav^^^^^ '"^(5^]. •'''^•^e^'Pr^^dS^ ^28 years^ l^o,|village-^Kp Gharghoda,^ District Raigarh [G:.©^ VEI»US ^:- 1] Jai Prakash Mishra S/0. Shri Badri, Prasa^Wshra^, K/Q-vWage.Ms^Qt,. Tah. Gharghoda, DistFict Raigarh '•[C.G]:.:' ;,;;.. ; :,:.: , .':^^ ^] •Sarpanc^ram Rancha^^^al'tl^i,, glocfe TaTitgiar, .^Talisi^^t-i3i-§:HQ<)a^. •-Oistrict::R3igarh [€-.G.3.^;;^Y;:^'K;,i':'. <^ ;^B|oek^'Edti£a(]on:; ©fficer,^^^ T^Rsil- ©MarghQda,•DistriffBRfflgail'i; ^ y^] Chieffi; Cxeeutive1 •Qffiicer,^^^ ..Ranefiayat;,: f :Taffinar,ft .^.; t.'Tal'isfl; Gharghorcla/DistrietRaigal-lj [€©.]. / ,5] AddKlQnal ColleGfQr, Raigai-hi,:Ta!'isi|. anctsDistrict Raigarh^[C.GJ , s^j^ y 6] @ireetdri RanGhayat ChitlatUisgarta,1 '.;,,:Ra:]|?yFr'[C.G.]:. ;::•:,.:.' ;,::^ WRCT'PETIT-lH^N^I^.SgEEatMl®I.Bj22®jK2t7;J@l:»l5lE :i^®Nsiaaiv»@Ew©Bai^iEi][%^ XSSi 1-II6H COURTOFCHHATTI^ARM AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5408 of Petitioner Ajay Kumar Patnayak Versus Respondents JaiPrakashMishraandottiers Post fororderon lif- March, 2007 Sd/- • -', SatishK.Agnihotri Judge "N a ^^^a^^?'-^ HI6H CQURT OF CHHATTISSARH AT BILAS'UR Writ Pttition No 5408 of 2005 Petitioner Ajay Kumar Patnayak Versus Respondents Jai Prokosh Mishra ond others Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justi<»Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: Shri S.K. Tiwari, counsel for tiie petitioner. 5hri Indr<t%n Sahu, counsel for the re^ondent No. l. Shri Satish Supta, &q>uty Sovernment Advocate for the State/reqaonclent No. 3, 5 and 6. OR&ER (Passed on /^ay of March. 2007) TTie following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J 1. This writ petition, filed under Articte 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the legatity and validit/ of the impugned order dated 9-8-2005 (Annexure P/l) possed by the Oirector, Panchayat Chhattisgarh, Raipur in appail case No. 410/A-89 (15)/2003-04 along with revision caise No. 445/A- 89(l5)/2003-04, whereunder order dated 2.7.2001 passed by the Additional Coltector, Raigarh was upheld. The petitioner further chaltenges the order dated 2.7.2001 passedby the Additionat Collector, Raigarh in appeal case No. 5M-89/2000-2001, whereunder the cppointmentof the petitioner was found contrary to -riie Education &iaran-tee Sdieme (E.5.5.), asin +hepc»iel list sent by the Sram Pcmchayat. MaWoi, name of the respondent_No. 1 -2- was at Ser'ial No. 1 and the name of the petitioner did not find the place in the said list. ^.-t- 2. The indisputable facts.in nutshell, are that the applications were invited by public announcement system (Munadi) for appointment on the post of Surujee (Teacher) in two proposed schools at the Gwm Ponchayat, Mahloi and the Gram Panchayat, 6a.re. Under Education Suarantee Scheme (E.6.S.) with the consent of viltage community name of -the reqiondentl cnd others were proposed. The said proposal wos opproveel by 6ram Panchayat/Sram Sabha Mahloi ond was sent to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Tamnar vide letter dated 11.10.1999 (Annexure P-17), name of the respondent No. 1 was at serial No. 1. The Chief Executive Officer did not approve the said list and sent a letl'er dated 11.1.2000 to the Chairman, Adfflinistrative Commitl-ee, ©ram Poncha/at, Mdiloi for sending a panel list for appointment of Surujee at Patarcipara (Mohtoi) within three days. 3. The Chairman, Administrative Committee vide tetter dated 11.1.2000 (Annexure P-19) reptied that the panet listof cca'idida-tes had already been sent vide letfer dated 11.10.1999 and no amendment is required in the said list. The said list was sent on the basis of the apptication received from the candidatespurajant to the public euinouncement. The Jnnpad Panchuydt again wrote a letl-er to 6ram Panchayaton 17.4.2000 for inviting the opplieations ^m -3- and sending a fresh panel list forappointment on the post of Surujee. In view of second announcement for invitin9 appliaitions from the candidates, name of the petitioner was opproved by firarn Panchayat in its meeting dated 17.7.2000. Ttie name of the petitioner was sent for appointment on the postof Surujee in village Patarapara (Mahloi) to the Chief Executive Officer,Janpad Panchayat, Tamnar. The Chief Executive Officer accordingly appointed the petitioner ds fiuruji at Education Suanmtee Scheme (E.6.5.) Patarapara, village PcBichayat AAdhloi superceding earlier proposatsentbyJanpadPcBichayat. 4. The respondent No. 1, being aggrieved, filed an lappeal before the Additionat Collector, Raigarh. The Additional Cotlector, Raigarh after having examinedall the facts, caame to the conctusion that appointment of ttie petitioner on -the basis of second proposal without considering the rejection of the first proposat, sent by the 6ram Pandiayat, by the Ch'ief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchoyat, Tamnar was perverse. Thus, •t+ie appointment of the petitioner was quashed and the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Ponchaycrt', Tamnar was directed to take appropriorte action in accordflince with Education Suarointee Scheme (E.6.5.). 5. Being aggr'ieved, the petitioner has filed an dppeal as »»ellas •i. review before the Director, Pandiayat Chhattisgarh, Raipur. The ilii :Ur- ^-4- \> 6. &ir^+Br^(^chdyat affiFmed^e^^^ by^e.Atldifione^CotleclBr^RaigaF^anctd^ T^e petitioner h^ fitecl this pe^ition m^ 9A.2(X}5 (Annei&reP-t^and 2.7.2001 (Arinexu^^P^^ ground that authority telowfhave not^^^ <^ cOF-pectly.The A<Mitional Gollectophc^iwjupisdictionte^^e^ th&q^p^l.Thus.-tte^oFderlpeKsed^b^^^^ law. I have heardy^r. 5.1t Tilw^l, tecum^^^<^ Mr. Indrcsen Sahu, learned'counsel forthe^^re Mr. ^atish &pta, Eteputy Sqvernmetrt ,respOndent.;No.3,';5.CM'icl '6. :: •'; ''- , . •; :: • ; „'„ ,,:.: ;: ::..:., • •: 8; 'On perusal ofMie pq^ exam|nesd the fw^ correctly^ the bcsis <rf^p^^ There is no mis^pree^on of eviden^^^^^^ Wem.T^ereisnoperverSity^oti^clm^ esiMop^beAowa^'^Kw'j^^^ fore^oing,rwinterfet^ j^i^i^ted.^^^^^^;^^^^^^ ^ ^ 1 •••. • . . ••. ".•'.." '.•••^- •••• :...•'.'.•- . .' / • ' . • • •• •' • •••'•'• •••.••'••';'. '•• • • • •'-. . • •: ..•'..••: :'•••';: 9. lt is well settled ^iheigleSiMf la^ Artiele 226 or;directiort^n^FiA^icle287iof^&:^ ::India''is1sa^:^for,;c9r'ftei|tn^|gi'ossi^ors^|^^ ^ep'^a •;SuboRclina1%S<@jmEi^F'il»UBals^.is':^ ^^. ::^wf (i) witliout juCTSdiction byflssuming jupirfictj<m^ei-e •rt'iere exiiSts none; or (ii) in excesd of its jupisdjc^ crossing the limil^ <rf jurisdictioiT, 6r (jjj) o^ng^^^w disr'egcwtfoflawop^t^pi^ pnnciples bf nffhjralt justice^ w^ ^ecifi^.^d^erebyoccdsiohingfculureofjustice. ^ jlAsape^ll'l^ foregoing ^ ^No orderdstocostS. SdA sa&hK.Agnihotri Judge 5irf>hdsh -<-