HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2216 of 2001 Petitioner Miss Chn'stina Das D/o Late Pakloo Das, aged about 28'years, R/o viHage-Fattupur, Branch Ghumka, Tahsil—Khairagarh, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C. G.). Varsus Respondents : 1. State of Ch'hattisgarh, Through : Collector, Panchayat and Village Development, Rajnandgaon (C. G.). Janpad Panchayat Khairagarh, Distt. - Rajnandgaorl (C. G.) Through :- Chief Executive OfEcer. og Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri V.G. Tamaskar, counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the Respondent No. 1 Shli Ranbir Singh Marhas, counsel for the Respondent No. 2. V ORAL ORDER ‘ I? (18th January, 2006) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for appoinhnent on the post of Shiksha Kanni Grade-III against vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste community. Her selection was cancelled on the sole ground that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Satnami) community, but her religion is Cheseanity. 2. The petitioner tiled a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge Class-I, Khairagarh, being Civil Suit No. 26A] 99 seeking a declaration to the en‘ect that she was Scheduled Caste Satuami and she does not belong to Christianity and consequently She should be appointed on the post @ of Shjksha Kmari Grade-III against the reserved seat of Scheduléd Caste. 3. Learned Civil Judge, by his order dated 14.8.2000, came to conclusion that dispute relates to government service and in View of the existence of the State Administrative Tribunal, Civil Court had no jurisdiction‘to entertain the said suit. Accordingly, the said suit was dismissed as not maintainable. Be that as it may, the State Administrative Tribunal has been abolished. At present, there is no State Administrative Tribunal in existence. Even otherwise, disputed question of facts are involved in the present petition and as such this court can not resolve disputed facts in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings for relief. 4. In View of the foregoing, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sdl- r Satish K. Agnihotri A Judge Bablu