^-\<s^Q__ SIngie ^®nth IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.SL(d) 2- QP 2011 J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^^M/ \^y ^ ^ .^c-y" ..A ^' ^B>" ^ / ^ Ram Prasad Rathore S/o Shri Mohan Singh Rathore Aged about 34 years, R/o Gram - Girwar, Post- Lalpur, Tahsil—Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur(CG) VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department ofTribal and Scheduled Caste Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) «^"" 2. Commissioner, Department ofTribal and Scheduled Caste Development, University Campus, Raipur (C.G.) ^"^ > {SM.fi <8,|L-^4: 3. Asstt. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. ' Collector, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA _ _3— -T ^^^ ""'••^^•s^ HIGH COURT OF ; BILASPUR S.B«: Hon^ble Shri Maaiiidra Motian Shrivasta^a,' J. RBSPO^m^EHTS Writ Petition j8| No.3493/2011 Raiii Prasad Ra.tho.re Versus State of Chiiattisgarh aiid others Writ Petition u/A 226 ofthe Constitiiition oflndia Present:- • Shri Viaod DesIiniLikh, coi-.in.sel for the petitioner. Shn Vinay Paiidey, Paiiel Lawyer for tlie State, on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4th Ju£y,2011) PIeai'd on adniission. 1» This petition has been llled by the petitioner chaUenging notice dated 6.4.2011 (Amiexure P-1), wherein, it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner is not. proper and nor in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Govt.. 2. Leained counsel fpr tlie petitioner submits tliat. the action of the respondents is Ulegal, as even before receiviiig reply, the Asst< Commissioner has clearly stated in the notice that the services of Uie petitioner would be tenninated aft.er one month, which would uieaiiing that he has pre-judged the issue. hl<»# 3. Leanied counsel for the petitioner further submits that though large number of such appointment, approximately 220 m number, were niade iu the district^ however^ only the petitioner and other 38 employees have been picked-up for hostile discrimmation and without. taking any action m other cases, the notices have been issued to tiie petitioner. 4. On tlie other hand, leamed counsel for the State submit. tliat whatever has been stated in notice dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P- 1) is only a tentative opimon of the authority and fhe fact tliat the petitioner has been given a notice shows that no final decision in the matter has been taken and the saiiie \¥ould be only after fhe receipt of reply. He further submits fhat vai'ious facts have been stated in fhe notice in order to enable the petitioner to submit an effective reply. 5. Notice dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) shows that the Asst. Commissioner has issued notice to the petitioner t.o submit his reply. Ou the basis of statement; which has been made by leamed counsel for the State as also going thoiigh tiie notice, it is clear that whatever has been recorded, is only a tentative opinion and cannot be a final decision iii tlie matter. The ve^ . fact tliat the petitioner has been given a notice shows that an eiiquiry is contemplated in the matter, Thereforc^ I aiii uot inclined to accept the submission of leamed counsel for the 1^......-._. „. ^_^..-. ...^.; ...-.^.__...^ 'ycs^ /Q^ ^ "•••••. i^^'9^^ ^ '"%:^.. petitioner that the final decision has been taken in the matter and tlie issue has been pre-judged. 6, It is well settled that before tsking any action for caucellation of appointment or termination on the gi'ound that that the appointment were Ulegal or without following tlie procedi.ire prescribed by law/biiiding instructions, proper opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded and enqui^ is to l^e held. In view of submission which has been made by leamed counsel for the State, there is no reason for this Court. to hold that respondent would not hold proper inqutry. However, it is observed tliat respondents shall duly consider the reply filed by the petitioner and hold appropriate enqiiiry before coming to any couclusion adverse to the interest of the petitioner. 7. With fhe aforesaid observations, the petition is fmally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^lwft