HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARHATaLASPyR DJVISiON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV ©UPTA,C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Petitioners Writ Petition No.4627/2006 1. RAVI VERMA aged about 36 yeare S/o Shri Girivar Slngh Verma, Janpad Member R/o Village Deovarbiza Tahsil Berla, Distt Durg (CG) 2. SHAILENDRA SHARMA aged atout 31 years S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma Janpad Member Janpad Panchayat Saja R/o Vlllage Patora Tahsjl Saja, PO Karesara PS Khamharia, Distt Durg (CG) Versus 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through: Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department DKS Bhawan Mantralaya Rafpur (CG) 2. JANPADPANCHAYATSAJAThrough Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saja District Durg (CG) 3. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT EDUCATKMU OFFICER Block Development Saja District Durg (CG) 4. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Through: Dlreetor General CBI NewDelhi Writ petition U/A 226/227 ofthe Constftution of Imlia Respondents Present : Shri VG Tamaskar, counsel for the petitioners. Shri NK Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. •^-A 42 ORDER (19th March,2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard. 2) The petitioners have flled thls writ petition ftir the fotlowing reliefs: *' "(1) That, the Hon'ble Court be plesBedto call for entire record of Scrutiny-Committees of Janfad Panchayat Saja District Durg (C©)and examlne the same. (II) That, the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to examine the experience certificates issued in favour of candidates seeking-appointments as Shiksha f^rmis. Under Janpad Panchayat Saja Distitet Durg (CG) (iii) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased dlrect respondent No.4 to enquiry into all the appointments of Shiksha l^rmis appointed under Janpad - Panchayat Saja District Durg (CG)" 3) Initially the writ petition was listed for hearing before a Single Bench of this Court on 04.09.2006. On 04.09.2006, following order was passed in the writ petilion: "Learned counsel for the petitionera submlts that the petitloners have prayed for a general enquiry pertaining to selection of the Shikshakarml. Leamed counsel for the State submits th^ to view of the above, the matter appears to be PIL. Office to take notice and do the needfut." 4) Thereafter, the wrlt petition was re-regtetered as WP PIL and has been posted for hearing before our DIvision Bench. 5) Shri NK Agrawal, learned counsel for the State relying upon the dictum of the Apex Court In the case of Gurupal Sinah Vs State of Puniab and others. reported in AIR 2005. Sunreme M y 43 Court 2755 submitted that the writ petitton as Publie Interest Litigation in a ser/ice matter is not malntalnable. 6) It is apparent from the above quoted reliefs sought by the petitioners in the writ petition thatthe petitionere are challenging the appointments made by respondent No.2 to the post of Shlksha Karmfs. 7) The matter, thus essenfialty is a ^rvice matter. The writ petition in the form of 'Public Interest Litlgation' is not maintainable in aservice matter in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Gumpal Singh (supra). 8) The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to approach "Lokayog" for the redressat of the grievances projected In the writ petition. 9) Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.3572/2©08 also stands dismissed. 10) The securlty amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited by the petitioners be refunded to them. / Sd/- Chief Justice padma Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 'l'"