^; ^.- ^ {)\^ ^' HSGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BELASPUR WD.rS)No. 729 of 2008 PsfjtSoner Av^dh Ram Lahare, S/o Madhav Ram Lahare, Aged about 5Q years, Block Education Officer (Su©p©nd©d) BHaigarh, R/o ViJJage Tjhaltpali, P.O.-Pandripali, TehsiS- Bitaigarh, Dist :Raipur - (C.G.) Versus Respondente 1, Stats Govt. of Chhattlsgarh. Through - Secretary School Education Of^cer, Education DepartmenS, D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) 2. The CoiSector Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) 3. The Djstrtct Educatjon Offlcer, Raipur, DistS. Raipur- (C.G.) 4. The Joint Director, Public Educatlon Department, Raipur, Dist:Raipur-(C.G.) 5. The Chief Executiye Officer, Djstrict Panch-ayat Raipur, Distt. Raipur - (C.G.) 6. The Sub Divlstona! Qfficer (Raj.), Anuvibhag, BiSajgarh- (C.G,). 7. Rohit Kumar Dewangan. S/o Shri C.R.Dewangan, Aged about 48 years, Sncharge Block Education OfRcsr, Bilaj'garh, Distt. Raipur- (C.G.). WRSTPETSTOSNUNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTSON OF JNDiA Slngfe Bench : Hon'bSe Mr. SaSish K. Agnihotri. J. Shri Dsepak Jain, Advocate for the petttioner. Shri U. N. S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for ths respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 4th day of February, 2008) 1. The petjttoner was working as BSock Education Offscer. BiSaigarh. By order dated 15.10.2007 (Annsxure P/7) passed by the Coitector. Raipur. the petitioner was piaced under suspensjon. Ths petttioner Impugnes this order after a period of three months. The petitjoner is, admittedly, governecS by the Chhattisgarh Clvll Servjces (Classificatjon, Controt and Appeal) Ruies, 1966 (for short 'ttie RuSes. 1966'). Rule 23 OH) cfearjy provldes that appeai Sies against the order of suspension mads or deemed to have made under RuSe 9 ofthe RuSes, 19S6. ln viev^ of the statutor/ appeiiate forum avaiiable to the petltioner, there Is no reason to cSjrec^y sntertasn this petitSon, §n exercise of §teextra ordinaryjurisdtetion under ArticSe 226 of the Constjtution of india. Thus, the petillon Is dismissed as not malntainable on th© ground of avasSabiIIty of the statutopy' efRcadous remedy of appeal. provjded under the Ru?^ 1966. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrl Judge