r! y^ ^ 1 3-^ i""-.pr.^^~:&S 5", ^?^'.^fir'^; BEK^S IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S.) NO. 5^°^ /2011 PETITIONER: .«' »\ -i'°*' .-•^y'^y o^,w^y -fv ...•;^^>- ^ ...•,&l<" '^;.-' <fv" A.-'' '". ^' Dharmendra Prasad Sarswat, aged about 43 years, S/o Shri Bhudeo Prasad Sarswat, Occupation Service, posted as Upper Division Teacher in Government Higher Secondaiy School, . Dangarh, Distt Rajnandgaon, R/o Village & Post Dangarh, Dist Rajnandgaon (C.G) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgai-h Through : The Secretary, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Developn-ient Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2) Conimissioner/Direcfcor Tribal Welfare Department Government of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3) Collector District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4) The Assistant Commissioner // Department of Tribal Development Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF __MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARY AND FOR QTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS. ^ 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT B1LASPUR WRIT PETlTiON (S) N0. 2209 OF 2011 PetitLoner Dharmendra Prasad Sarswat Versus f^.:-,f; J^nts' State of Chhattisgarh & Others V^RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTSTUTIOM OF INDSA Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri 'v'ivek Rathore, Advocate for the petitloner. Shri Saiish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State. UKUfcK (ORAL) (Pasc-C' Q" thte 27*?' oay '-'f Aprii, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsei for the oarties. 2. Chalienge in this petition is to the show cause Botice dated 29-11-2010 (Annexure P/1) which was issued to the oetitioner after 'navina taken decision on 28-11-2005 to cancei promotion of the petitioner to the post of UDD9F Divislon Tsschsr holdlHQ thst "3?Tr|^T •'-i^1^^.! ^ '^s'—'KT^n^Tf^H ira ?pnfc|i/f$R:n—'5STT/Q2/l80/20Q5/1189?'7TlTO'?,l^.*1!4i 28/11/2005 'STTT ^^"^cj'iTj T7'5? ^T '¥Rft-—TT^t?;Tl^f>F':'^'i-i.! ^ f^uvlid 'i^t '^TR' •3Tl^^T?t '^ >^^L —2i>. !^K-!| 3jTT'H'c;Tl "^ \j<i^! g-[T? '^ 37T?TT7 Tf7 y^^'.^n ^7 | ^ ^ji TT^TT ! ^i^e^ "^iriq "gT^T M^|"-|Fr|' lciy<.ch tp^t P,^^?? f^S' '^m '^? -BHTT^ SHUf^f 'S^TT ^^ i'r-^a? ^l^uiT TiS^ri "?Xi'ty!. '^' i 3. At the very outset, ieanred counsei appearing for the parties very falrly ar)d jointly submit that the identlcai issue came up for consideration before this Court in Raiesh Kumsr Shukla v. Stata of 4 Ch.hatGsgarh & Others' and other connected matters wherein this Court, reiying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahara WP (S) No.7658 of 2010 (declded on 25-1-2011) c Arun 4. Ind'ia (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Csntrat- J & Anothei^, obssrved as under : "4. Sn the case on hand. there is no statutory prQvlsion to provide post- decisiona! hearing, which necessitates revlew of the order in fu!l. Appiylng the weli settied principies of law to the facts of the case where admittediv decisron to quash the eariier order of promotion was taken before issue of shovv cause notlce. Thus. show cause notice is vltlated." ADDlvina the weii settied DrinciDiss of iav/ to the facts of th®present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned notice dated 2S-11-2010 isquashed. in the resuit, t'ne writ oetition is allowed. No order asto cosis. Sd/- Satish K. Ag: Judge