70 ^u^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR PETITIONER RESPO^TDENTS WMT PETITION (S) No. 7W of2008 Subrat Raiijan TiwarL S/o Shri Ajeet Kumar Tiwari, aged about 22 years, Occupatioii - Senrice, workixig on the post of Shikshakarmi Class - III at KastuAa Gandlii Avasiya Vidyalaya, Deobhog, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat and Granim V&as Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipw, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Executive OiTicer, Janpad Panchayat, Deobhog, Distiict - Raipur (C.G.) 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE-CONSTI'I'UITONOFWDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AsnBiotri, J. Present: Shri Suml.Sahu, Advocate fbrthe petitioner. Shii Satish Gupta, Govermiient AdvQcate for the State / resposident No. 1, 2, and 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 28th day of March,2008) With the consent ofthe parties- the matter is taken up for heari.ng finally. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Kamii Grade III on 09.08.2007 (Amiexure P/3) at Deobhog, District Raipur. All of a sudden, witiiout affording any opportunity ofhearmg, the appointment ofthe petitioner was cancelled on 03.12.2007 (Aimexure P/l) by the Collector, Raipur, on the basis of complaint made by the Member ofLegislative Assembly, Rajim. L Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner submits fhat fhe question of law as to whether an employee is entitled to show cause notice eveii to examme the genuineness ofthe document, has already been considered by this Court in a batch ofmatter byjudgment and order datsd 14th March, 2008 in W.P.(S) No. 95/2008 (Ku. Punam & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & OAers) and 1.1 4. 71 other comiected matters. This case is squarely covered 011 fhe question of law. Sliri Gupta- leamed Govemment Advocate submits that so far as the qvestion oflaw is concemed, it has already been coiisidered and decided by this Court in fhe above stated judgmeot. However, the State be pemiitted to verify fhe facts ofthe case. In view of the foregoing, this petitioii is allowed m flie same terms i.e. petitioner be atlbrded an opportumty of hearing to establish genumeness,, tmthfalness ofthe documents submitted by him for obtaimng appointmeiit on the post and to put for^-ard his case before his appointment made earlier is cancelled. The impugned order dated 03.12.2007 (Annexure P/l) in respect ofthe petitioner shali not be given effect to until the directiosi mentioned hereinabove, is complied with. i l'.l:^.l';.',:,.SdA; J Satish K. Agnihotri ^:^;'/)' / ^Judge^^^ Anut