(9c HIGH COURT OF CHHA’IVTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRH‘ PETITION {S} No. 1621 0f2009 : Ajay Kumar Gupta Aged about 22 years, PETITIONER Sfo Bigan Ram Gupta, Shiksha Balm Grade III, Primaly Scheol Bhairapur, R/O Jarhi Mead, Bus Stand, Post Bhatgaon, District Surguja ChhattiSgarh. VERSUS Stat€ 0f Chhattisgarh through The Secmtary, Department of Panchayat 8a Rural Develepment, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G,) RESPONDENTS 2. The Collector, Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgaxh. 3. The. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, District Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226f227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aglihotri, J. Shii Amrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arum Sao, Government Advocate or the State] respondent No. 1 and 2‘ Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respoudent No. 4. ORBER {ORAL} (Passed on 30¢ day of July, 2009) / : / Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 1. Leamed counsel appearing for therespondent No, 4/ Chief Executive Ofticer, fairly submit that the issue involved in this case asto whether the petitioner, who is Shiksha Karmi, has been afforded an opportunity of hearing b'efore termination from her post, came into consideration before this Couit in the matter of Ku, Punam and 9). omers v. Staie of Chhattiégarh Othersl. Learxied cowssl further submits that sinC€ no proper opportunity was affonkd to tho potitioncr bofom immination, tho authoxitiés shall take appropn'ats Stops in terms of the judgment wad order passed in Ku; Punam {supra}, before passmg any order. The conceroed authorities will try to complete the whole exercise Within a period of three weeks. The Chief Executive Officer has passed the impugned order of removal. 2. In View of foregoing, according to learned cormsel appealing for the petitioners, nothiilg survives in this petition for adjudication, Having regard to the facts situation of the case and the judgment passed in the matter of Ku. Punam‘ (supra), the impugned removal order dated 28.02.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) is quashed. HoweVer, liberty is reserved to the respondents] authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 4. Consequendy, the writ petition is disposed of. (VJ/:3], 1 . Sd/— . i. Satish K. Agmhotn. Judge 5 Thakur 1 2003 (2) cGLJ 366 //