^r ?^> INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. '°-5<;-/'2Q09Single Bench PETITIONERS fyy/ ^y /'•^<'/^''" Jte-' si* .• f ^.f &•' ^ ^" .w 1. Rajendra Pradhan, S/o Lalit Pradhan aged about 27 years R/o village- Semliya ,Post-Toresindh ,Tahsil - Saraypali ,Distt.Mahasam.und (C.G.) 2. Dinesh Naik S/o Jageswar Naik aged about 27 years R/o ViUage - SemUya Post- Sindhanpur Tahsil -Saraypali Distt.Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. Pannanand Jeri S/o Parsi.iram. Jeri aged about 34 years ward no. 1 Harizan MohaUa , Saraypali , Tahsil - ^Saraypali ,Distt.Mahasamund (C.G.) 4.Santosh Kuinar Panigarhi S/o Iswar panigarhi R/o Ward No.13 Odiyapara ,Saraypali TahsU -Saraypali ,Distt.Mahasamiuid (C.G.) 5. Soinesh Dube S/o Dayaram aged about 31 years R/o post -Paikin , Tahsil -Saraypali ,Distt.Mahasaraund Premanand Rath S/o Vinod Bihari Rath aged about 39 yeai-s R/o Chaddigirola Tahsil -Saraypali ,Distt.M£ihasamund . 7. Biharilal Sahu S/o Chhotelal aged about 33 years R/o Harha (Nawagaon ) Post-Badesajapali Tahsil -Saraypali ,Distt.Mahasamund (C.G.) / ^ 1^ : ' 8. Ajay Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Sakharam ; R/o Village Durga Pali Post Rohina Tahsil-Saraypali ,Distt.Mahasamund (C.G.) RESPONDENTS / VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Throughthe Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan Se, Vikas Vibhag, Manfralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiir.(C.G.) ^^ i'Si.' ^ .. ^•'r 2. Director, Naggu-iya Prashasan& Vikas Vibhag, Raipur & Bastar Division, Raipur, Distt. Raipur.(C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Nagriya F>rashasan fis Vikas Vibhag, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) 4. Nagar Panchyat, Saraypali, Through its Chief Municipal OfGcer, Nagar Panchyat, Saraypali, Distt. Mahasainund (C.G.) 5. Collector cumDistnct Election Officer, Mahasamuad (C.G.) 6. CoUector, Mahasamund, Distnct Mahasamund (C.G;.) WWT PETITION UNDERARTICLES 226 OFTHE COWSTITUTION OFINDIA HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.632 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Rajendra Pradhan& Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WritPetitron under Article 226of the Constitutton ofindia) Sihgie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotrl, J. Present:- MsSharmila Singhai, counsel for the petitioners. ShriY.S, Thakur.Dy. Adv.General fortheState. Shri RaghvendraPradhan, counsel for the resporident No. 's t x ORDERfORALy (Passed on this 12'" 8ay of January,2010) With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for tte parties, the petition is heard finally. The petitioners, by this petition, challenge the legalify and yalidity of the order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure - P/1), passed by the Collector fii District Election Officer, Matesamund, whereby the appointment orders of the petitioners have been cancelled. Learned counseiappearing for the petitioners woutel submitthat the petitioners were appolnted vide orders dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P/6) on the posts of Pump Kull & Mati. The appointment orders of the petiUoners were passed by the Chief Municipal OfRcer, Nagar Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, after following due process of selection and in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment.By the impugned order dated 27.10.2008 (Ann®(ureP/1)the appointtnent ordere of ttie petttioners were cancellwl on the ground that the appointments were made during Iheexistehce of the model code of conduct imposed for Assembly Elecdon, 2008. Learned counsel appearing for the State wouW submit that tljie appointment ordere wwe pass^d on 10.10.2008, prior to |qi0 enforoement of the model code of conduct in Assembly Eteetion itl f: ^ Gowri 6. 2008, as the model code of conduct was enforced on 14.10.2008. Having heard teamed counsei for the parties, havlng perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.it is evldent that the impugned orderdated 27.10.2008, canceling the appointment orders dated 10.10.2008 was passed on the ground that the appointment of the petiUone'rs were made during the existence of the model (^e of conduct durir^ Assembly Election; 2008.The Stete, elarified the position that Uie n-udel code of conduct was not in existence when the appointment Orders were passedon 10.10.2008. Thus, canceling the appointment orders vra®.withoytany basis. Even otherwfse, there ig no other reason ft>r canceilng the ajspointment orders, except that the appointmerrt ordere were passed dun^ existence of the model code of conduct^dueto assembly eiection. The respondents have failed te prove that the model code of conduct in assembly electipn was in existence on 10.10.2008. In view of the foregoing.the impugned order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainabte in law. The irnpugnedorderis accordingly qyashed. The petition is allowed to the extent indlcated above. No order astocosts. —- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotrij Judge