^ E1-,-. E^^i ff.sa-(Pii1^ SlriaSs B®RCS'I BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0.2^64 / 2011 PETITIONER ^^^ .<?'^:'^'.^~^-v'""*" ^^%^"'" ^•••" ,^'^^J ^ SF>ONDENTS Balkrishna Verma, S/o Shri Bhagirath Verma, aged about 43 years, R/o Ward No.5, Indira Nagar, Raigarh, Tehsil & District-Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Raigarh, District-Raigarh 3) The District Education Officer, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 4) Digri Lal Patel, S/o Shri T.R. Patel, aged about 43 years; R/o village-Padigaon, Tehsil & District-Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3^ •<i|t)ic|t|, g-alyis, fsiMM-i^ .^.^(^..^^.^Jf 3n^?T'(raq? ('^fgp^?) an^i ^n 'R-iieh wnsiTSngitiw wnwRfeian^i 1SB: Hon'ble Shri iVlanindra MoRan n 3-06-2011 petiti|3ner's pettti|?ner Shri Kunal Das, counset forthel Shri N. Naha Roy, Panei Lawy^r This petition has been filed by 21/2/2011 (Annexure P/1) by whi( Panchayat, Raigarh has rejected Learned counsel for the seniority is iliegal as earlier, the appointment to the post of Shiksha K^i hastfiled complaint to Lok Ayog. Lat^i the matter of properconsideration o<] finally an order of appointment was| 22/7/2010 granting appointment to the) was not granted from the date, whj representation was preferred which 21/2/2011. Learned State counsel efRcatious remedy of appeal / revisio|n Panchayats (Appeal and Revision)Ri<l Taking into consideration the for the parties, 1 am of the view that revision under the rules of 1995. Thet writ petition as there existsan petitioner is entitled to avail statutory of 1995. Considering that Uiewrit p4< subrftits alternlative t:oi^[<n<nti liw^1f ^f 'f^st ^F^^R ^? siRpT 3n^?t nnvastava.j. Ipetitioner. for the State/respondents 1 to 3. {he petitioner aggrieved by order dated th the Chief Executive Officer, Jila ciaim for grant of seniority. submits that the refusai to grant petitioner was illegalty deprived of |rmi Grade - 1 whereafter, the petitioner ^r on, certain directions were issued in petitioner's case for appointment and issued in favour of the petitioner on petitioner on 5W2010. As the seniority ^n the selections were initially made, rejected vide impugned order dated vijas that there exists an alternative under the provisions of Chhattisgarh les, 1995 (forshort'Rules of 1995°). submissions made by learned counsel he petitioner has a remedy of appeal / •efore, lam not inciined to entertain this remedy of appeal/ Fevision. The •emedy available to hlm under the ruies tition was filed by the petitioner before '^, H.,,,^SiSA 'yy' XI-HC—78 3^T '^wiw^, 'S^WTS, fsfdl-Lf.4,< .:!^..l.:.Qr).^.:....^A'l/^ s^v Tr^? (15crf3^ti) SII^I^TfS'IRr wn aii^i gBfw ^nwnfs?! sii^ii 5- ^jthis Court, it is directed tnat in case, 'y Iw'rthin a period of sixfy days from decide the matter on its own merils Deepti iimitation. With the aforesaid observation^, the petitlon is finally disposed off. 'Tiiln'Ili tn<TCff 'ii feet tfe^iT ^atfinsc^i |the petitioner prefers appeal / levisuun tt>day, the authority shali consider and •i^s, without going into the question of Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava !Judge