*:?^^<i*t SINGLE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.40B3 /200^ PETITIONER "Smt. Durga Patel W/o Bhuneshwar Patel, agedabout25 years, Shiksha Karmi Varg-3, Unna Primary School Mahant, District Janjgir-Champa [CG]. VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ~^^^ '^>:w^''''^''-^ ^^^•"""" y ^^. x' ^ ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.] The Collector, Janjgir-Champa [C.G.]. The Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh, Janjgir-Champa. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh, Janjgir-Champa. 5-]/ The District Education Officer, Janjgir-Champa [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE ^26/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRITPETITION No. 4083 of2005 Smt. Durga Patel. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1, 2 and 5. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 06th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law inyolved herein asto whether the ser^ices of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, after appointment can be cancelled on the ground that there was irregularity in the selection process. The said issue was considered and decided by this Court in Ku. Punam & Others v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others1. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the other side fairly submit that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in Ku. Punam & Others (supra). 3. This very question came up for consideration before this Court in Ku. Punam' & Others (supra). While allowing the case of Ku. Punam & Other (supra), this Court obser^ed as under: <<22. The cases on hand are not the cases of cancellation of the selection process, the selection process have not been found vitiated on account ofany reason including mass copying or mass ' 2008 (2) CGLJ 366 irregularities . The present cases are where the appointment orders, after hqving given effect to, have been cancelled subsequently, on discovery of some facts that some of the candidates had submitted false and forged documents to obtain the appdintments. 23. Applying the well settled principles of la^ to the facts of the present cases, the respondents/authorities have already prepared a second select list on the basis of the selections held earlier. On scrutiny, most of the candidates found place in the second list and their appointments are continuing, as such. some of the candidates could not find a place in the second list after scrutiny on account ofdoubtful documents submitted by them. It is, therefore, directed that the candidates who have not found place in the second list be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness, truthfulness of the documents submitted by them for obtaining appointment on the posts before their appointments made earlier are cancelled. )) In view of the well settled principles of law, this petition stands ^ disposed ofin terms ofKu. Punam (supra). No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit