@ I'IIGH COURT Q? CHgAiwESGA3E, £1LA§39UR Wa'it ?etitian gS} N0.2219!2G03 ?ETET§GNERS 1 Sushée‘i Kumar, ag€d about 22 years‘ son 0f Shri Durga Prasad, ghikgha Karim (rsmovrad‘), Gowmm€nt Higher Sacondary Schosl Maciallpur, District Korba{CGj Rio Podhi, RS. Balco Distn'ct Korba(CG) Bh‘uneshwar Singh Chandra, aged about 26 yeas, son of Shri Mani Ram Chagdra, Shiksha Karmi (removed) Plimary School- ’I‘elera Bahar, Korba District Korba (CG), R/o Jstha PO Laksara, Via Sakti, District Janjgir Champa(CG) Shiv Kumar Bareth, aged about 24 years, son of Shn‘ Ram Lal Bareth, Shiksha Karmi (removed) Primary School Saacharbahar, Korba District Korba (CG) R/o village Malmi PO Sulmi, Distn'ct Janjgir, Champa(CG) 4 Madan Singh Rathiya, son of Jot Ram Rathiya, aged about 29 years, Shiksha Karmi, (removed) Primary School Simkeda, Korba, District Korba RIO Vill Botli, PS Kaltala Tah. Kartala, District Korba(CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 State of Chhattisgarh Through 'the Secretax'y, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipm(CG) District Collector, District Korba(CG) Chief Executive Onicer, Janpad Panchayat, Korba Distn'ct Korba(CG) Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Apgearance: Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Government Advocate for the Statejrespondents No. 1 8t. 2. None for respondent No.3. x i; 1 i / 2 ; m VV.P.(S) N0. 22 19/2008 ORAL (mm3-R {17.04.2008} SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. With the consent of 1:110 parties the matter is heard fmally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were earlier appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Gmde—III vide orders dated 15. 1 1.2007 and 14.12.2007 (Annexure P/ 3). Thereafter, the petitioners joined their services and started working on the post of Shiksha Kai-mi Grade-III. Without aii‘ording an opportunity of hearing, the services of the petitioners'were terminated on 31.3.2008(Annexu1e P/ 1) on the ground that the experience certihcates produced by the petitioners were false. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) NOV 95/ 2008 (K11.Punam 8n others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected matters. 4. Shri Alok Bakshi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State] respondents No. 1 8n 2 submits that the issue raised herein has already been concluded by the decision in the case of Punam (supra). Thus, this petition is accordingly disposed of in the same terms that the petitioners be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness of the certiiicates produced by them before passing an order of termination. The impugned order dated 31.3.20081’Annexure P! 1) is sunita accordingty quashed. No ordei as to (osts Kiiw Sdl- Sinha Sunil Kumar Judge