IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR w.P. (s1 N053U2l2008 PETITIONERS / 1. Devendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Sahu, Aged about 25 years, R/o Village 85 Post— Ghonch, Tahsil 8L District— Mahasamund (C.G.) Vinod Kumar, Chandrakar, S/o Shri Bhikham Lal Chandrakar, Aged about 34 years, R/o Village 85 Post—Palaud, Tahsil-Arang, District—Mahasaxnund (C.G.) Tula Ram Sahu, S/o Shri Madan Lal Sahu, Aged about 26 years, R/o Village—Devari, Post-Gullu, Block—Arang, District—Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh : Through Secretary Panchayat Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, through the Secretary, C-168, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat Basna, through Chief Executive Officer, District— Mahasamund (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Basna, District— Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS :- As Stated above in cause title. / W w .12,L$2..~.$.T§0 l o g ”Wt 2 m mmmm ‘ Wim f’w Aqs‘wmm SB: Hon.‘ Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker 25.1 1 .2010: Shri Prateek Sharma counse for the petitioner. Shri Ajeet Singh PL for resp ndent No.1. Shri Varun Sharma Advocat on behalf of Shri Saméer Behar counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava cou sel fOr respondents 3 and 4. Chaflenge in this petition ist the order dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4 by whi h the services of the petitioners who are working as Shiksha Karmi Grade iii have been terminated. The ground taken for said termination is that the app intment of the petitioners was contrary to the Government Rules. Counsel for the petitioners submits thatrhe has already fiied an application (IA No.2) on 7.10.2010 f r deleting the name of petitioner No.3 as he does not want to press this petiti n. IA No.2 should, in fact, have been for withdrawal of the petition instead of deletion of name of petitioner No.3. Accordingly, the application (lA No. ) is allowed and the petition as regards petitioner No.3 Tula Ram Sahu is di missed as withdrawn. As regards petitioner No.2 Vi od Kumar Chandrakar, it is submitted by the counsel appearing for the peti Oners that he may also be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty \ file an appropriate appeal before the /// //'/ / m W Coector, along with an application or condonation of delay. He submits that the petitioner No.2 may also be anted liberty to approach this Court if occasion arises. Counsel for the r spondents do not have any objection if petitioner No.2 is permitted to with raw this petition with aforesaid liberty. Accordingly, the petition as regar petitioner No.2 is also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an ap eal before the Collector along with an application for condonation of dela . The appeal so filed by petitioner No.2 shall be decided by the Collector in ccordance with law. As regards petitioner No.1 D vendra Kumar Sahu, it has been fairly submitted by Shri Pankaj Shrivasta a counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that this petitioner has a very good ca e on merit as the persons who have secured less marks than the pet ioner No.1 have already been given appointment and therefore he is also entitled to remain in service. Considering the fair submission made by Shri Pankaj Shrivastava appearing for respondents 3 and 4 the petition as regards petitioner No.1 'Devendra Kumar Sahu is allowed. lrnpugned order of termination (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. I Sd/- Pritinker DiWaker Judge [u’ra {its}: ll