COURT OF CHHATTI.SGARH AT B1U4SPLTR •\ PETITIONERS WRIT PETITION '(S) No. 770 of2008 : 1. Ti!<am Singh . Pradhan S/o. Shri Ramayan Pradhaii, aged about 27 years, Ry/o village Suka.li Baiitha, Post - Latapara, Vikash Khand Deobhog, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Tiran Singh Yadu S/o Slm Khageshwar Yadii, aged about 27 years, R7o. Village.- Ghogliar, Post - Ghispool, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Mamiiohan Sing S/b Jawaii Siog Markam, aged about 31 yeai's, R/o Viilage- Sesidmuda, Post— Kliokliara, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 4. Kanchan Kapoor Tandiya S/o, Saiit Lal Tandia. aged about 23 yeai-s, R/o viilage aiid. Post - Deobhog, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 5. Ku. Mamta Salame S/o Nandlal Salame, aged about'27 years, R/o Village and Post - Deobhog, Distt.-Raipur(C.G.) AJ1 .are workisig 011 fhe post of Shikshakanm Class - III, Vikash Kliand Deobhog, Distt.. Raipur (C.G.) ^rERSUS : 1. State of Clihattisgarh^ fhrougli. -Secretary, Panchayat aiid Gramiii Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan,.RaipBr, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C,G-,) 3. Chief ExecBtive. Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Deobhog, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4/ Sub Divisional Offacer, Gariyaband, District Raipm-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION 'U^?DER .AJtTlCLE 226 OF THE CONST'mJITON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Me SSiri K. Agmhotri, J. 'RESPONDENTS Present: 81m Simil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Sliri Satish Gupta, Goveniiiieiit Advocate for the State / responde.iit No. l,2,an.d4. ORALORDER (Passed on 28U1 day of March, 2008) With-the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearmg tmally. 1. The petitioners were appoisited as Shiksha Kanai Grade III 011 09.08.2007 (Aimexiire P/3). .AJ1 of a sudden, withoirt afibrdmg any opportmiity of hearing, fhe appomtments ofthe petitioners we.re caiicelled 011 03.12,2007 ^il (Asmexiire P/l) by the Collector, Raipur, cn the basis ofcomplamt made by tlie Nlember ofLegislative Assembly, Rajim. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner siibmits that the question oflaw as to whether an employee is. entitled to show cause notice eveiito examme the genuiiieness ofthe docyment, has already been coiisidered by this Court in a batch ofmatter by judgaient and order dated 14th March, 2008 in W.P.(S) No. 95/2008 (Ku. Punam & Otliers Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and other coimected matters. Tliis case is squarely covered on the questioii of law. Sliri Gupta, leamed Govenmient Advocate submits that so far as the question oflavv7 is concemed^ it has already beesi considered and decided by this Court in the above stated judgment. However, the State be pemiitted to verify the facts ofthe case. In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed m the same temis i.e. petitioners be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness, tmthfiilness ofthe documesits submitted by them for obtammg appomtmeiits on the post and to put fonvard their cases befbre their appomtments made earller is cancelled. The impiimied order dated 03.12.2007 (Aimexiire P/l) m respect of the petitioners shall iiot be given effect to imtil the direction nientioned hereinabove, is complied with. .:—- Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Aj-nit