H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGA'RH AT BILA8PUR PETITIONERS s^ ^' WRITPETITIONC 8 ) No. 442 of2008 1. K^shav Pmsad Netam 8011 rf Shri Maiitram Netam, a^d afcoirt 20 years, Rjesidait of' Vlllage Tamori Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) • ^ ; ;•• 2« Sarita Netam Wife of Sbri Praveen Kumar Netam, aged aboirt 24 years, Residesit :o.f Viilage Bharrftola, Police Statioii asid Tal'isil .Ambagarh Chowki, DiMrict Rajnatidgaon (C.G.) 3, Pamianand Sahii SOB of Shri Bisahuram SahiL about 33 years, Resident of Villag^ IIda, Tahsil Tilda, Disirict Raipw (C.G.) 4. Gaaesh Ram Dhszrv Soii of Shri Mantram DhniVy aged about 31 years,.: Resideiit. of Vilage Miiswadeeh, Tateil' Palari, DjNiict Raipur(C.G.) . . . .. 5/ Dayaram Dhmv Soo. of 8M Tefcram Dhmv, aged aboat 24 years, Resicteit of Gadakp^^ Tahsil Palari, District Raipw (C.G.) 6. Kamlesh Verma Son of Shri Jawahar 1.^1 Yerma, aged about 21years, Resideirt,. of Vilage Khomii, Talisil Aaraiig, Diytrict Raipiir • (C.G.) 7. Paltan Singh Kanwar Son of Shri Santram Kaiiwar, aged about 24 year^, R^gid^fit: ,;0f V'illage Guaderdehi, Post. Baadhabaza-r, Tahsil Asiibagarii Cfaowki, Di^trict ^ Ra|iiaiM!gaQfi^ (C.G.) 8, Iiidrani Sahii D/o SM Narayaii Sahii, a.ged about 20 .years, Resident . of :.Vilage'' Bharwadeeh Kala, Tahsil Tilda, District. .Raipur (C.G.) ,:. :, ;.,1..:J:. RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Tlie Secretary Departmeirt of Paiidiayaf ajftd SociaI^Wel&re,,' D.K.S. BhawaM, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Sub Divisional Offlcer, Balodabazar, Dislrict Raipur (C.G.) 4. Janpad Panctiayat. Palari, throiigh: iis Chief Ex^cuti'v^ Officer, Janpad Paisdiayat Paltfi, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. 'The Chief Executi've Officer, Janpad Paiich^yat Palari, District Raip'ur (C.G.) WRIT PETmON IJNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS'rmJII'ON OF 1NDIA SB:_Hon9_b:te,8}iri,SatisiiK.,A.ptihotri,J. • . .. Presesit: Shri O.P.Yadav, Advocate fbrthe petitioners. Slm Satish Gupta, Deputy Govenmieiit Advocate'for the 8tate/respotidei3t No. 1 to 3. QRM-^w^m (Passed on 22nd day of Jaauary, 2008) 1, . The pctitioners were seiected aiid appoirted on 'tlie post of SMksha Kaniii vide order 14..08.2007 (Annexiire P/9)/0n verificatio!i, it was ft)imd 'the experience as well as N.C.C. certificates by the petitiodi.ers did iiot ^ppear to be gesiui.ne. Accordingly^ Aow cmise-.aotices (Amiexure P/l to P/8) were is^aed to the petitioiiers. Ilie petitiosiers, after liaving repliedto ttie show-caiise-iiotices, have approached ttiis Coyrfc'seekmg writ of certiorari/mandamBs to quash the impu^sed sho-w-caiise-iKrtices AnnexureP/ltoP/8. 2» On ipery, as to wfaich. ri^it of fhe petitioners faave in&iii^d, ifllie petitioners have failed to prodiice valid and genume cert:i:fscate and the authorities concemed, by issii.mg show cause notices^ are affordmg opporfamity of hearmg to tto petitiaicrs. The p^itioiiers oa.gfat to. replied put forward their case before the authorities. Leamed co'UBsel. h.as failed to reply the said query, 3, TIBIS, commg to 'this Court to a writ seeking quash.mg rfti^ rsotices iB frivoloiis exercis^. There is 110 merit m 'this case. The petition deserves to be m simimarilv.. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ATnit.