W THE HON'BI^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATNSdARH AT BIIASPUR (C. G.l WRIT PETITION(C) N0.^0^^ /2011. PEaFITIONER Sant Guru Ghasidas Shiksha Mahavidhyalaya, Pachpedi, Bilaspur Through Shri Premchand Jayasi, aged about 38 years, Son of Shri Rajbhan Prasad Jayasi, President, Managing Conrmittee, Sant Guru Ghasidas Shiksha ^^s-" ^ ^•- ta RESPONDENTS Mahavidhyalaya, Pachpedi, BUaspur R/o Qr.No. HIG-40, Devrikhurd, P.S.Torwa, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS l.( State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2.' Sarguja Vishwavidhyalaya, Through Registrar, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 3. Director, State Council for Education Research and Training, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, 'v-/ ^ Chhattisgarh. 4. National Council for Teacher Education Through the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee (NCTE), Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. WmT PBTITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA B HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR PET1TIONER RESPONDENTS WRTT PETITION (C) No. 4089 of2011 Sant Gum Gbasidas Mahavidhyalaya. VERSUS State ofChhattisaarh & Others. Shiksha •%/EIT PETITIQN UN'DER ARTiCLE226 QF THE CONS'nTUriON OF WDIA SB: Hosi'Ue Shri Satish K. Agmhotn,_,L Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for fhe petitioaer. Sfari Aron Sao, Govemment Advocate forthe State/respondeiit No.land3. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Shri Bfaaskar Payasi, Advocate forthe respondent No. 4. ^. (Passed on 09tfl day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that by show cause notice dated 20.06.2011 (Annexure P/l), the respondent No. 2 has directed the respondent No. 3 not to pennit fhe petitioner college for participating in counselling. Shri Patel further submits that reply to Aie said notice was filed on 01.07.2011 (Annexure P/l 1). Without taking any decision on the reply on tlie subject matter ofthe show cause notiee, the University has reeommended the respondent No. 3 for not permitting the petitioner to participate in tlie counselling. Shri Patel next submits that this is contrary to the well settled principles oflaw that without affording an opportunity ofhearing, ao order, whatsoever, may be passed which causes prejudice to the petitioner. Any recommendation or order could have been passed only after considering tlie reply ofthe petitioner as is clearly stated in fhe show cause notice that reply is to be filed till 04.07.2011 to explain asto why action may not be taken against the 3. In view offhe above, making of recommendation at the stase of show cause notice is contrary and violative of basic principles of natural justice and that cannot and shall not be given effect to at fhe stage ofshow cause notice wiftiout passing proper order. 4. Since reply to fhe show cause notice has already been filed, flie respondeat/University may consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordanee with law on its own merits and thereafter, consequential order may be passed, ifso required. 5. In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. 6. Certified copy, today, ifpossible. ___ , Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNmOM Judge Aimt