CD IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 WRIT PETITION N0./^-?^ ^2006 ^. iTs^^i^^. PETO'LONER .^..^' (^' ..-•;'^.:-"' ...••""' .•>•' €<:^/ cw^ 'tiy^ ":,A""^ e^^ <^ RESPONDENTS Virendra Kumar Singh Son of Shri Ramsharan Singh, aged about 23 years, Resident of Village Hariharpur, Tahsil Surajpur, Block Premnagar, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 3. f '•^/ 'Y'5s>>S>^—^^ ^y^i^ o^ ^^ 6. The Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Premnagar, District Surguja (C.G.). Gram Panchayat, Hariharpur, Through: Sarpanch, Hariharpur, District Surguja (C.G.). ••- ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^s ^-.y v 7. Jagdish Singh Son of Shri Jirjodhan Singh, aged about 25 years, Resident of Village Rameshwarnagar, Tahsil Premnagar, District Surguja (C.G.). WRH__PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICEJN_JHE MATEER HIGH GOURT OF GH IQ"FlSGftRHfAT BILASPUR WritPetiBonNb. 1336of2006 Petitioner : Vu'endraKuniar Singh Versus Respondents : State of Ghliattisgarh & others Sin^e Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Agnihotri. Shri V.K. Paadey, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Govenunent Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 2and3/State. ORAL ORDER (27fh March, 2006) 1. Lcaraed counsel for the petitioner submits that fhe petitioaer along with fhe respondent No. 7 applied for appoiatanent on the post of the Panchayat Kanni in fhe Grain Paachayat, Hariharpur. The respondent No. 7 was appoiated without foUowing due process of law ou the ground fhat the respondent No. 7 happeus to be close relative of the respondent No. 6. 2. Learaed couusel for the petitioner further submits fhat the petitioner be graated pennission to m.ake a represeatation before the coiapetent aiifhorities with a direction that the said repre-seutation be considered and decided, in accordance with law, within fhe sdpulated tune, to which leamed coiinsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 have uo objection. 3. Accordingly, fhe petitioner is pennutted to inake a representation withia a period of two weeks. On representation being filed, the conipetent authorides arc directed to consider aad decide the said I'epresentation, in. accordaiice wifh law, withia a period of 6 weeks froin the date of receipt of fhe sainc. 4. In view of fhe foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. —-- Satish K. Agnihotri | Judge