a“ /‘ magE %E§¢€H IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR we.) w.P. s N0. S? _ /2oo9 1. /Smt. Rajni Singh Sarwa, D/o— Shri Samaru Singh, Aged about 23 years, R/o- Village & Post Jawali, Tehsil - Kathghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh‘ ‘afw? / 2. Nirmala Yadav, D/o- Shri Jivan Ram Yadav, Aged about 22 years; R/o- Village -Kerajhafia, Tehsil - Pali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ‘ Hit ' 3. Bxijpal Das Mahant, S/o- Shri Golan Das Mahant, Aged about 29 years, R/o- Village -Ral, ' Tehsil — Kathghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. Niranjan Padey, S/o- Shri Jagdish Prasad Pandey, Aged about 27 years, ‘R/o- Village -Bhaisamuda,_ ' 3 Ha "Tehsil - Kartala, _ Distt; Korba, Chhattisg‘arh. / % / . I Manish Kumar Kaslyyap, S/o- Shri Kaleshwa‘r Prasad Kashyap, Aged abbut 24 years, R/o- Village —Haranmudi, Tehsil —'Pali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ' Ganga Kumari, D/o- Sh-ri Dhaliiram Aged about 27 years, R/o-Q. N02 220/2, Shantinagar, Bankimogra, Kathghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisarh, g FETITIONERS x y S m a " VERSUS K 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through—Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. K Collector, /" Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Pali, Distt.\Korba, Chhattisgarh. Korba, Distt. Korba, ESPONDENTS R Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CGNSTITUTION OF INDIA @ WWW) \“7 HIGH COURT OFCHHAT‘TISGARH : BELASPUR, WRIT. PETiTlON‘(S) NO.5770 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Smt. Rajni Singh Sarwa & Others Versus smte of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india) 'Sing‘ie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. resent z‘ , Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsei for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. t Shri Prafull Bharata'counsel for the respondent No.3. RESPONDENTS ORDER ORAL (Passed on thrs 12 day of January, 2010) With the consent ofrle'a‘rned coqnset appearing for the parties, the petition Is heard fnaiiy The petitioners in this petition are aggrieved by the cancellation of their appomtment orders dated 29-9-2009 (Annexure PM) on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade ill under Janpad Panohayat Pali, District Korba,‘without affording an-opportunity of hearing. The question of lawi'involvedkin this writ petition is whether the appointment of the petitioners, who have been appointed after due selection on' the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade lll, can be cancelled on the ground of submission of alleged faiSe and forged documents by some of the candidates, without affording‘an opportunity of hearing. he indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were elected for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade Ill hrough proper selection process and they were accordingly 4 i appornted After sometime the Chief Executive Officer Janpad V' anchayat Pali cancelled the apporntment of the petitioners on the ground of submissmn of false and forged documens by orders _ ated 29-9-2009 (Annexure PH) Being aggrieved the petitioners have fled this writ petition seeking a direction to quash the impugned order (by which the services of the petitioners» have been» terminated, and to grant relief of continuation of service on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade—ill «m, we P r T s t P d . ‘ Learned counsel appearing for the'petitioners would submit that once the oetmoners have been appomted after foilowmg proper seiectlon process and after venfcatron of the documents thelr 'appamtment cannot be cancelled wrthout affording, an oppcrtunrty of hearing. Learned counsel would further eubmlt that the petitioners ought 'torhave been given at least an opportunity of hearing to establish the genuineness or bone fide of the v documents, which were allegedly discovered, later on, by the authorities, as false and forged documents, after appointment of the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit ‘ that on the similar facts and situation the identical issue has been decided by thrs Court by iudgment dated 7-8-2009 m W P (S) No 3012 of 2009 (Durgesh Prasad Sinha Vs Stale of Chhatbsgerh & . others) which was allowed Thus the present wrlt petition deserves to be allowed on the ground of parity ’ Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not controvert the above submrsstons made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners . i have heard teamed counsel appearing for the parties perused th pleadings and the documents appended thereto it Is evrdent that the apporntment order dated 29-11-2007 (Annexure -— P/2) was cancelled after about two years Without affording an opportumty of i hearing to the petitioners The principle of law in passing such order, which vi5its With ciVil consequences, is well settled No unitive order can be passed Without applying the ba5ic prinmple of natural justice and fair olay in action The controversy involved in this case was considered by this Court in Durgesh Prasad Smha (supra) ln View of foregoing; the impugned orders dated 29-9-2009 - (Annexure —’ Pf1) passed in respect of the petitioners are guashed. The petition is»allowed.. No order asto costs. However, having regard tothe facts situation of the case, liberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate actionlsteps in accordance with law if so advrsed after complying wrth the basic principles of natural iustice and fair play in action Sd/- 'Sat1sh K Agnlhotr l “xii Judge ‘ ' r ' e i g p