A^^ ^-^??r ...^^y i ";."••' ...'"•• .-* ^ f-ity .•^>?" »S».3f" o - e [ i d0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 5' WRIT PETITION (S.) No. ^2-'^- /2011 PETITIONER Santosh Kumar Sao , aged about 41 years, S/o Shri D P Sao, R/o Purani Basti Talwapara, Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS J. The State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Ministry of Panchayat Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur ^2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir Champa WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE OF INDIA ailtw^lftFlW '<TSH SH^T ^t+iiq) 'S^I '^MM^,W^WW, fatfiyy . w^.^jrv^.gz'y/^rt^ sn^! ira^ (ipf^^tf) 6«lli(R^lf^ 311^1 h Shrivastava, J. Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyei] Heard. This petition has been filecj by the petitioner aggrieved by the ^ppointment on the post of Shiksha on Karmi Grade-lt. Learned counsel for the pet|' petitioner has not been granted the he is entitled for the same,as he that even though, he was placecl Karmi Grade-!! (Maths) having seci|n he has been denied appointment obtained marks less than the petitioj Learned State counsel submt Shiksha Karmi, ifthere is any grie't appointment of less quaiified, al an appeal before the constitule Chhsttisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Niyam, 2007 (n short "Niyam of2001 Considering the submissiorl petitioner and the State counset, stage. The petitioner has preferred| Officer [Annexure P-5). The Chief| decide the representation of the pe1r to the petitioner, as to why he h< petitioner is aggrieved by the ord^r this '^1^5?^? 'HTR^ff ^f ts1^ 'l.f^'t^K iTsSB^an^i 'or the petitioner. for the State/respondent No.1. ;|tioner submits that ev-en though, the l^eneflt of age relaxation, as per rules, jvas a green card holder. He submits S.No.87 in the merit list of Shiksha :i|red 111.11 marks in the examination, and the persons, who have been jier, have been appointed. i|ts that in the matter of appointment of I'ance with regard to non selection or i^se issues can be raised by preferring |ed appellate auihority under the i^armi (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Sharte) 7"). made by tearned counsel for the am not inciined to interfere at this representation to the Chief Executive lExecutive Officer shail consider and lltioner and communicate the decision |as not been seiected. in case, the of the Chief Executive Officer, he 33 XI-HC—78 ^ST ~-^wwii, wa\ww, ?^c\wy, V^.^[?/rw.9Z9/Z<r)) Sf^V 'tR^T (lyi^«t<ET) 3TI^I^lf?qH7 'cT^TT 3?T^?I St»*ll<ih ^WW^fesil^I —^. ^srf^F^T 'nR^ ^* f^T^' <f^'^l< i?3UOTsii^r Tumsne urlde wouid be at liberty to challenge th^ appellate authority constituted grievance ofthe petitioner is not re): authoriiy, itvi/ouid be open forthe p^titioner remedy as may be avallable to him iji same by fiiing an appeal before the the Niyam of 2007. In case, Jressed by the order of the appeiiate to take recourse to such tenat inder the [aw. With the aforesaid observatio i, the petition is finaiiy disposed off. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge