1 ^ \^~) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1^^-2 OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^?" ^ Dinesh Kumar Kori S/o Late Devsharan Aged about 23 years, R/o Gram - Harratola, Post - Lalpur, Tahsil - Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur(CG) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Departaiient ofTribal andScheduled Caste Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, Department ofTribal and Scheduled Caste Development, University Campus, Raipur(C.G.) ^' 3. Asstt. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Collector, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA 1 '^P^'^I %. .. .J^' ^ ^ COURT OFCHHATnSGARH,:,BI!,ASP:UR 3.S5.1 Hon?ble Shri Masiindra BSoiian S!&ri1rasta'ra, J« PETITIONER -'ZiESPOHDENTS WritPetition_ISLNo.34937201_l Duiesh Kumai* Kori Versus State of Chhattisgarh aad others Writ Pefcition u/A 226 ofthe CoiistltutioEi oflndia Presesits - SIiii Vmod Deshmukh^ ccunsel for the petitioner. SIiri Vinay Pandey, Panel Lawyer for tlie State, on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4th July; 201.1) PIeard on admission. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner chanenging notice dated 6*4*2011 (Annexure P-l)^ wherein^ it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner is not proper and nor in accordance with the procedLire prescribed by the Govt., 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submlts that the action ofttie respondents is illegal, as even before receivmg reply, the Asst. Commissioner has clearly stated in the notice that fhe services of the petitioner would be terminated al't.er one month, which would meaning that he has pre-judged the issue. .^ 1.^1^'^^ ./• -^ 1 F ;^s^':-m^\ 3. Leamed counsel for tlie petitioner further submits tliat thougli large number of such appointinent, approximately 220 in number, were made tn tlie district^ however, only the petitioner and other 38 employees have been picked-up for hostile discrimmation and without taking any action in other cases, fhe notices have been issued to the petitioner. 4. On fhe other hand, learaed counsel for the State subniit that whatever has been stated in notice dated 6.4.2011 (Aiinexure P- 1) is oiily a tentative opinion of the authority and the fact. that the petitioner has been given a notice shows tiiat no final decision in tiie matter has been taken and the saiiie would be only after fhe receipt of reply. He further submits that various facts have been stated in the notice in* order to enable tlie petitioner to submit an effective repty< 5. Notice dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) shows that the Asst. Commissioner has issued notice to the petitioner to submit his reply. On fhe basis of statement, wliich has been made by leamed counsel for fhe State as also going though the notice, it is clear Uiat whatever has been recorded, is only a tentative opinion and cannot be a flnal decision in tlie matter. The very fact that the petitioner has been given a notice shows tliat an enqu^ is contemplated iu tlie matter. Therefore^ I am not incliiied to accept the submission of leamed counsel for the petitioner that the final decision has been taken in flie matt.er and the issue has been pre-judged. 6. It is well settled tliat before taking any action for caiicellation of appointment or tennination on the groiind that tiiat. the appointment were illegal or without following fhe procedLire prescribed by law/binding instructions, proper opportumty of heariug is required to be afforded aiid enquiry is to be held. In view of submission which has been inade by leamed couiisel for the State, fliere is no reason for this Court to hold that respondent would not hold proper inquiry. However, it is observed that. respondents shall duly consider fhe reply filed by the petitioner and hold appropriate enquiry before comtng to any conclusion adverse to the iuterest of tlie petitiouer, 7, With the aforesaid obsen^ations, fhe petition is finally disposed of. 1 Sd/- ! Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Prs^eeii