HIGH mum OF CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ reunion {S} No. 856 orzoos PETITIONERS : l. Somnath Bhagat Slo Mahali Bhagat, Aged about 50 years, R/o Vmage Kusmi, Police Stat. and Tahsil Kusmi, Distri¢t Surguja (Chhmiisgarh). 2. Bridhichnnd Kujur, S/o Maxiyanus Kujur, aged about 27 years, R10 Village Kusmi, District Surguja (0G), VERSUS : l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaxy, Panchayat an Social Welfare Department, DKS‘Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Collector Surgtija, mbikapm, District Surguja (CG). Chief Executive Offlcer, Zeela Panchayat at Ambikapur Distn'ct Surguja (CG). Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Kusmi, District Surguja (CG). E"P 5. Block Education Oiiicer Kusmi, Tahsil Kusmi, District Surguja (CG). ‘ 6. Chairman Janpad Panchayat Selection Cotmnime Siksha Karmi Janpad Panchayat Kusmi, Tahsil Kusmi, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri J.S. Baraik, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11“ or February, 2008) 1. The petitioners are resident of Kusmi, Distriet Surguja (CG). The petitioner No. 1, who, as per annexure P/3 1, is a former Mandi Chairman, Kusmi, Dimict Surguja (CG). The petitioner No. 2 is a candidate in the selection for the post of Shilcsha Karmi Grade III. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the validity of selection of candidates pursuant to the selection process held for appointment on the post of Shiksha Kanni Grade III. - 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there have been goss irregularities in the selection process, therefore, the selection may be L- cancelled. . 2M . Learned counsel has not given any speciiic instance indicating that there was an irregularity except one that Shri Akash Kumar Gupta who has found plane at serial No. 29 in the select list, belongs to General category when he was found in the list of Schedule Tribe. On query as to what is the locus of the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner is not in position to infonn about locus of the petitioner No. 1. . This petition lacks materials and is vague. Even otherwise, if there is any grievance, the petitioners ought to have approached to the Collector complaining about irregularities, if any. The petitioner l did write a letter dated 30.07.2007 (Annexm P13 1)‘ . The petitioners have rushed to this Court without waiting for the decision of the Collector in his letter dated 30.07.2007 (Annexure P/3 1). The said letter has been‘made by the respondent No. 1, not by the respondent No. 2, who is aggieved by his non selection. . Be that as it may, the Collector, Surguja is directed to examine the entire issue and pass an appropriate order in accordance with rules, as expeditiously as possible. . With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. i\t\\_\ ,- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu 1' ”%1.. /. m