SINRLE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR 58/ 6 W.P. No.^^/ & /2005 PETITIONER .•-•J^ /...-^ •_A.^'/ ^0-^/' .SJ^>'L^7 ^ ^y ^' RESPONDENTS : ^%i> cv^ ^ ^'i?--.'"^ <^^^^;s^ ^ Durgeshwari Paramhans, aged about 23 years, D/o. Satel Ram, Category: SC, R/o. Village Naila, P.H.N. 42, Vikas Khand Nawagarh, Tehsil Janjgir, / District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh VERSUS ^l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Department of Panchayat & Social Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattlsgarh 3. The Chief Executive Officer Ziia Panchayat Janjgir Channpa, DfstrictJanjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh / 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District Jarugir Champa, Chhattisgarh y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TUE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^T^T ^T fqii^ ^mW^T^lte ~S^ r^ww^, y>Ti1-M4i<o, [s|dtyl|< *1i*1CTI »NI<t» ^....tO:t.T\!o.:....'3i.^./P.5, J -^200 SIT^T 'q^F (^f^^) ^TTW^rft^ ^n^y S,B:_HON'BLE<JUSTICEifiR,P^ 16-07-2009: Shri Sourabh Dangi, coun^ ShriAjay Dwivedl, Dy. G.^ Shri Sandeep'Dubey, cour| Learned'counsel appeari^ auestion of !aw involved herein ^ Karmi Grade-III afterappolntme^ there was irregularity in the selec| This very question came inKu- Punam & others vs. Stal (2) CGU 366 while allowing tlj Court obser^ed as under: " 22. The cases on of the selection pn not been found \ inciuding mass c< pr-esent cases are having given e1 subsequentiy, on d tho candidates 1 documents to obtas? 23. Appiyjng the facts of the preser have aiready preps of the selections h candidates found appointments are candidates cou!d n' scrutiny on account 'cM^t<n<i1i 1E?TH^Tf ^f 'f^st <r3i^.i< '^>3ffW3?T^T .iTiNKER DiWAKER >el for the Detitioner. .'fortheStats. isei for respondent No. 4. ig for the petitioner submlts that the is to whether the semces of Shiksha- t can be cancelied cn the around that son process. ip for consideration before this Court te of C.G. & others repprted in 2008 ie case of Ku. Punam (supra), this land are not the cases of canceilatlon )cess< the seiection processes have itiated cn account of any reason )pying or mass jrregujarities. The ^h9re tho appointnisnt ofdsrs, aftor tect to, nave been canceiiea iscoverv of some facts that some of false and forg©d i©d submitted the appointments. weii settied principies of iaw to the it casss, the respondents/authorlties red a secona' seiect iist on the basis eld eariier. On scrutiny, most of the piace In the second llst and their continuing, as such. Some of the ?t find a place In the second jjst after of doubnuiiy documents submitted by ^BC^78. 3n^t^ f^ii^ WT^H^T^RNF t' / '3'sr '<ii<ii<n^, y>Ti1-H<i<o, fsi<ni'M'j,< *18*ICTI WNIcn •-^200 aii^r '(WF (^t^^) ^RnW^f^T^T^T -2-- them. It is, therefcjr have not found p!a^ an opportunity ofj truthfuiness of th4 obtaining appointJTient appointments mad4 re, directed that the candidates who ;Q in the second select llst be alforded hearing to establish genuineness, documonts subniittsd by thom for on the posts before their earlier are canceiled." Ratiore One Kumari Anjulata before this Hon'bie Court ch^l passed by Coliector; Janjgir-Chl disposed of by this Court by ord^r the said writ petition this Court hs In view of well s^ stands disposed ^ Consequentiy, M.(^ Learned counsei for the pefltioner is Identical to the case| impugned in both these cases similar reiief on the ground of pa?|l With the consent of the disposed of in terms of the judgl' (S) No. 95/2008 (Ku. Punam & a!so in terms of the order 3848/2005 (Kumari Anjuiata others). ct)H{<yi<i1i 'RW^lf ^ 'fex3t <F»i^i< '^>3tftR3?T^T filed writ petition No. 3848/2005 lienging the order dated 29.7.2005 impa. The said writ petition was a!so dated 15.4.2009. Whiie disposing of [S observed : ^ttSed principles of iaw. this petition ^f in. terms of Ku. Pjjnam (supra), ^'.)P. No. 9.2006 stands disposed of. ^etitioner submits that the case of the 1 of Ku. Anjulata (Supra) as the order ^re same and therefore he prays for lity. p^rties, the present writ petitlon is a!so judglnent dated 14.3.2008 passed in VV.P. tthers Vs. State of C.G. & others) and c|ated 15.4.2009 passsd in W.P.(S) Rbthore Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge