r3ro/. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE , AT BILASPUR. (C.G.) /2011 PETITIONERS: ^.n<\ .<^^y .^^' ^''.-i'',^k'j'•••''' ^<s^'" •^•'^ RESPONDANTS: W.P. (Sl N0. 1. Ku. Supriya Gupta, D/o Shri Manikchand Gupta, R/o & Post. Kusmi, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 2. Ranjeeta Tiwari, D/o Ravindra Tiwari, (W/o Akhilesh Tiwari) Vill. Karkali, PO: Bhulsi, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 3. Bimla Manhar,W/o Shri Narayan Vaibhav, C/o Janardan Pandey, Manipur, Bilaspur Road, near District Hospital, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Ministry of School Education, Through secrefary, secretariat, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Ambikapur (C.G.) 3. Jila Panchayat, Ambikapur, Through Chief Executive Officer, Ambikapur, Dist: Surguja (C.G.) 4. Janpad Panchayat, Kusmi, Through Chief Executive Officer, Kusmi, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 5. Selection Committee, Janpad Panchayat, Kusmi, Throughits director, Kusmi, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA .<al%. -HC—7i ^~=r';?fraR:ra, ^•s-Kitf, ..t^.ff.Z..^ SS^V 'V5W (lyi^i^) sn^H w fc-ii'* ^^ 3ff^?T ^t*ti<t) (S? TOIRR tif^i sn^i rSB : Hoa'ble Shri Maaindra ^t<if<ny1i ^i^fff ^f 'f^et Tf^T^R ^aifTOanin Itfohan Shrivastava, J.1 13.6.2011 Shri B.P. Gupta, counse Shri N. Naha Roy, Pane No. 1 8s 2, on advance copy. } for the petitioners. ^ Lawyer for fhe State/respondents The grievance of fhe pe\ petition, is fhat fhough tlie Shikshakarmi Grade-III pursi subjected to process of selecjtion completed, select list have bec not being issued by fhe q Panchayat, Kusmi, who ac{ Appointing Authority. jltioners, as ventilated fhrough this Ipetitioners applied for the post of bant to the advertisement. and were i, even though the process has (n prepared, appointinents order are ^hief Executive Officer of Janpad bording to the petitioners is the Leamed counsel for respondents could not arbitr^rily orders unless fhere are just ^nd He further submits ftiat rep]|c Chief Executive Ofiicer, but,| further submits fhat copy of ^i the CoUector, who happens Chhattisgarh Panchayat Sharten) Rules, 2007. the petitioners submits fhat the refuse issuance of appolntraent 4nd proper reasons for not domg so. ssentations have been made to fhe he has not passed any order. He ipresentation was also forwarded to Lo be AppeUate Aufhority under fhe ShJLkshakarmi (Bharti Tafha Seva Ki •&,.-=•>' ^ 'ft,^ "^^f" '<':'*~-^^T...f<:.Li!;'' XI-HC—78 'TST '<INIM<1, 9TTI<1'IS, li<'dl'9ll< ^? SII^I 'q'RT (•^(^<<<^I) w^rwft-ii+ '^8TT ^\^t\ sa)*(tch wnwdfefaii^r Prayeen t- Though, mere selectioi] ^.ppointment, at fhe same time laiade, select list have been ^•espondent-appointtng authorit^ Authority has also been appn tiKilciili iliHnl' iffwf <p3|<^i< ^isfOTsiAg does not confer right to where the selections have been prepared and vacancy exists, I? is bound to consider all these jaspects. It is also noted that t^e CoUector, who is the Appellate ached by submitting a copy of jrepresentation before him. Sinc^ fhe CoUector happens to be the |AppeUate Authority imder fhe t-ules and copy of representation |has also been forwarded to hi^n, I deem it expedient to direct |respondent No.2/Collector, |Ambikapiir to consider fhe |representation made by the pet^tioners and decide the same. The petitioners, if so advlsed, inay subm.it another detafled representatton in continuar|ce of representation already submitted. Since the matter relates t|3 appointment, it is expected that the claim of the petitioners sh^U be considered and decided by the Collector/respondent No.2, as expeditiously as possible. Wifh the aforesaid obs^rvations, fhe petition is ftnafly disposed of. Nanindra MohanShrivastava Judge ^ -.^