TTBiT Ft.V r<1 ATBIL4 IK LIT (S) '?.fi1R ny2fti t-r iUI^. A^-t^ PETITIONEI Sira. Chetna Rusits aged ahout 36 vears. W/'o. S.L.Khunte R.'o Village Pachri, Posrt Misha, Via Shivrinarayaii, Distt. Jasjgir L..nampa. I'ii^artji^ijfjW i 1. Th^ Stats of €hhatti.S2arh- Tliroush t^W~^sr ^^'^ "^n/^.JL^A^r-M^^A^t.—^S-^^.-ii;-^ .A A^-l- ^/^ffl^. ^^* / ^^ Sscretarv, Panchavat aiid SLural Deoartment. D.K.S. Bhawan, P.aipiu'. 2. The Collector, Jaaigu- Champa. ^ r^:'.-..y Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchavat Distt. JaiiiairChainpa. 4. Chief Execiitive OfBcer, Janpad Paiichayat, Navagarh- Distt. Jaaigir-Champa. WMT^'ETmgNUNDQtARJICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA iW.. Wnn'Wle siin K.. i-, Present: Shri Parag Kotecha. Adv'ocate for th< Ste'i Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govenm responde.nt No. 1 and2. ;r. nunent Advocate forthe State -2. (Passed on 08th day of May, 20p8) Bv this petitioii. the petitioner chaUenaes the order of suspe'usion dated 24.04.2008 (Aimexure P/4). The pefitioner, by vvay ofpumsl'mient was attached to Block Devek'pment Office, Nawagarii, vide order dated 20.03.2008 and latei on suspended on accouat ofnon-compliance ofthe said order (.^mwxure P/2). Leamed counsel appearing for the State/'respondent submits fhat Rule 13 of the ClAattisgarh Panchavat Shiksha Karmi (Recroitnient aad Conditions of Serviee) Rules, 2007 (for sshort -the Rules, 2007') irovides for appeal agaiast any order passsd under t'ne provisions ofthe Rules 2007. :M^^M^;^^l^^|^If^ llli:!!Kil-?iit)!BlBiSg8a 3. The petitioner, without approaching to ths appellate authority has filed this petifioc under Articl& 226'ofthe Constitution of India. Nothing sxceptional has been made out ia this case to call for ititerference'with Ihe impugned ordar in exercise of its extraordmar\'-jurisdic'tion under Article 226 ofthe Constitution. -^ 4. This Court, in the matter of Smt. Ram Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh aad others rW.P.(S) No. 6031 of 20061, decided on 24.04.2008, held that nonnaUv the High Gourt should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious altemative remedy. Where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must sxhaustffie statutory remedy befbre rssorting to writ jurisdictiori, except v»hen a very strong case is made Out for making a departure. 5. Inthe presentcase.no exceptional'circumstaaces existwheremthe Hieh Court should make deoarture from the normal mle. Tnus, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of availability of altemative remedy. However, it is open to the petitioner to take r^course to statutory altemative fomm that may be ai ailable to hiin- if so advised. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge