'&'-S^ & ^a 'liy J.;» IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATnSGARH Writ Petltion (81 No. 2-3-3 of2007 PETITIONER: ^^ RESPONDENTS: Kum. Sadhana Kaushik, ''D/o Ramratan Kaushik, Aged about 20 years, Occupation: Service, F^esenfly working as Shiksha Kanui Grade-III, Govt. Girls Prunaiy School, Beltara, Block: Bilha, District; BUaspur, R/o Beltara, TehsU & District: Bilaspur, Chliattisgarh. - Versus - 1. ^. 3-. Zila Panchayat: Bilaspur, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Jaapad Panchayat: BUha, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through its Chief Executive Of&cer. Head Master, Govt. Girls Priinaiy School, Beltara, Block: BiDia, District; Bilaspur, Chliatdsgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUAJNCE QF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS. DIRECTIONS BTC., IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF UKB NATURE ^. HIGH COURT OP CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner Kum. Sadhana Kaushik Versus Respondents Zila F^nchayat Bflaspiir and otbcrs SB: HonWe Mr. Justice Satish K. AgnUiotei, J Shri Rajeev Shrivasiava, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ORDBR ( Passed on this 19th day ofJaniiaiy, 2007} The foUcswing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Leanied counsel appearing for the petitioner submits fhat the petitioner was appointed on fhe post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide orier dated 13.7.20(». He joined fhe post on 17.7.2006 m Govt. Girls Priinaiy Schc»l, Beltara, Block - Bffha, District Bflaspur, The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 28.10.2006 wrhicfa was received by him on 1.11.2006. The respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 7.11.2006, tenniaatiug fhe services of fhe petitioner, wifhout awaiting the reply of the petitioner. The petitioner was not gjven sufBcient tiine to subiuit tus repty. 2. The petitioner, without avaiUng fhe statutory remedy avaflable ID him. under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal aud Revisiou) Rules, 1995, has filed this petidon directly in this Court. This petition cannot be entertained when fhe effective aad r 7. efficacious statutory remedy is available. It is weU setfled ttiat the High Court shoiild not exercise its dBcrction in favour of the petitioner when fhe effective, efiKcacious and statutory remedy is available. 3. Thus, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, fhe petitioner is granted liberty to approach fhe appiopriate foram as provided uuder the provisions ofthe Rules, 1995, ifso advised. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2'hakur r