IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NofVBW 2004 PETITIONER : Au. Bhagwati Sahu, D/o — Shri Suresh Kumar Sahu, aged about 21 yrs., R/o ““ “nW ’ aw Village — Basantpur Development Block Baloda, Tehsil and District - Janjgir — Champa, (C. G.) VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary Panchayat Rural Development, Mantralaya, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. Collector, Janjgir—Chalnpa. 3. Janpad Panchayat, Baloda. I 4. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Qglwv V‘ ‘ H l Madwa through: Tehsil — Janjgir -Champa ‘o t § WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTCLE 226(227 OF THE CONSTITUTION §})F INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, !MANDUMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS ORDER OR ORDERS: J//’” / / \ M 9 V \ M i XI-HC—7 8 m 20% Wmw wmwm WW1¥WW $a‘mm cr. W . mvwo‘ww WWW mm (Wu) wwm 09.2.2005 Shri Abhishek Shanna, counsal for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, learnad Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents no.1 and 2 on advance c opy. Heard. , ‘ The case ofthe petitioner is that he was appointed as a contract (Annexure P—3). This order was Panchayat, Madwa Block Baloda a issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Tahsil Janjgir, Distt.Janjgir Champa (CG). The petitioner worked on completion of the said session of 2003-04, he was again given appointmentlfor the academic session 2004-05. A copy of this appointment letteris filed as Armexure P—4. One Ku.Kiran Swamy was agg‘ieved by the appointment of the filed proceedings before the Sub- petitioner on the said post. She Divisional Omcer (Revenue), Janjgir vide appeal case No.2/A- 89/2004-05. The petitioner was respondent no.2 in the said appeal. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer decided the matter finally vide order teacher vide order dated 27.8.2004 the said post and ultimately after XI-HC—78 Wm W200 mm (WHY WW1%=IT$ ammm “WWW ' mwxwwm maxim r'L" dated 04.10.2004, a. copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-S. This order went against the petitio . It is stated that the petitioner being aggieved by‘the aforesaid ord r, preferred an appeal before the Collector, Janjgir—Champa vide Case No.2/A-89(15)/2004-2005. Alongwith the appeal, the petitioner lso filed an application for grant of stay. It is submitted by learned ounsel for the petitioner that the Collector atter entertaining the said a lication dismissed the same vide order dated 25.10.2004 which has been impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petiti ner makes a statement that the appeal is still pending for final dis osal before the Collector. He submits that the Collector is not h the appeal and the same is unnecessarily being delayed, henee a direction be issued to dispose of the appeal within the stipulated period so that the matter may come to an end. The prayer seems to be reasona ble which is not opposed by the counsel for the State. n e ' g WWW W 200 amW (W) a direction is given to the Collector to decide the pending appeal within the stipulated period. 7 ,LeLthe appeal itself be dei >ided by the Collector as early as possible preferably Within a peiio‘ l of this order before the Collector. not expressed any opinion on the It is made clear that this Coult/has merits ofthe case. With the aforesaid directions, Ithis petition stands finally disposed of. Consequently, MWP No.478 2/2004 also stands disposed/of. Sd/- .2 Sunil Kumar Sinha f d of one month h‘om the date of v receipt/pmduction of certified copy C.C. as per rules. Judge Gr VRJ—FS/350—12/2000~50,000. 2m: Em faw % amm WW mm nfé’a 31m $ WW?W WW ' $ a‘m m In the opinion ofthis Coult also, 'ends ofjustice will be served if