^^ w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W.P.^No.1949 of 2008 Petitioner Vashishtha Kumar Sahu, Age about 26 year, S/o Shri Shatrughn Sahu, R/o - Viltage - IVlamtoja, Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. s. State Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Through: - The Secretary, Panchayat & Gramin Vikash Department. D. K. S. Bhawan, Distt.- Raipur(C.G.) The Collector, Kanker Distt. Kanker (C.G.5 The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Koylibeda. Distt. - Kanker [C.G.) The Chjef Executiye Officer, Ziia Panchayat Kanker, Distt.- Kanker (C.G.) The Commissioner, Tribal Weffiare Department, Rajpur. Btock Education Officer, Koylibeda, Distt. Kanker. WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTtCE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION Singte Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 1st day of April, 2008) 1. With the consent of tearned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finaliy. 2. The petltioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade 111 on 11.9.2007 (Annexure P/1) at PrSmary School, Markanar Bande, Janpad Panchayat Koylibeda. District Utlar Baster, Kanker. All of a sudden, without affording any Qpportunity of hearing, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on 27.11.2007 (Annexure P/3) by the Chief Executive OfRcer. Janpad Panchayat, Koylibeda on the basis of some Thakur irregujarities found in preparation of setection list for recruitment of Shiksha Karmis. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law asto whether an employee is entjtted to show cause notice even to examine the genuineness of the document, has already been considered by this Court in a bateh of matter by judgment and orcter datQcl 14th March, 2008 in W.P.(S) No. 95/2008 (Ku. Punam & Olhers Vs. State of Chh^lisgarh & Others) and other connected matters. Thls case is squarely covered on the question of (aw. Shri Bakshi, learned Government Advocate submits that so far as the question of law is concerned, it has already been considered and decided by this Court in the above stated juctgment. However. the State be permitted to verify the facts ofthe case. In view of the foregoing, this petftion is altowed in the same terms i.e. petitioner be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness, truthfulness of the documents submitted by him for obtaining appointment on the post and to put forward his case before his appointment made eartier is cancelled. The impugned order dated 27.11.2TO7 (Annexure P/3) »n respect of the petttioner shalt not be given effect to until the direction mentioned hereinabove, is complied with. —- Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge