^o•^-r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA'RH AT BII^JSPISR WRIT pETniON (S) No. 1127 <rf2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Bhuvan Ram Yadav S/o Shri Picharo Ram Y^adav, •agsd 38 y^ars, S/o Ville. Pithama, Blodk Pathalgaosi Distt; Jashpur. VERSUS 1. State of* aiiiattj.sgarii ttsroagh 11^ Secretary, Paiichayat & Social Welfare : 'Deparfinent, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (G.O.)." .• Deputy Director, Paachayat & SKiteiai %^lfare» 2. District Jashpur (C,0<) 3. Chief E^cutwe Officisr, Jai3|md . .Eaffitoyat, Pathalgaon, District Jashpvr (C.G.) 4. Gram Panchaat Pithaama Tlirougli ite ^Sarpaiwh, Pithama, Block Pathalgaon Disfa-ict JashpBf (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER AR1ICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hoii'Me Stari Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Presetit: Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate fbrthep€titioner; Sliri Alok Bakshi, Govermiient Advocate forthe State /respondent No. 1 and 2. OMALORDER (Passed on 26ttl day of Febmary, 2008) : 1. llie petitioner challe^ges the validity ofthe order dated ml (Axiiiexure P/7) whereby, pursuant to the resolirtion passed by Gram SaNia^ Pithaama, the petitioner has been ramoved from t3ie post of Panctoyat Karmi (Secretary). Leamed counsel submits fhat thou^i there m a provision of appeal under Rule 3 ofthe Madhya Pmdesh Panchayats (Appeal aiid R^vision) Rutes. 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1995'). However, m view of certainjudgments passed in Prakash Chandra Patel Vs. State ofChhattisgarh & Others {2004 L.T. (CG) 142} and Dhaluram Kosaria Vs. State ofC.©.& Others {2006 (2) C.G.L.J. 186} bythis Court, this petition is maintainable. 2. Leamed counsel farther relies on the order dated 4 Jaau^Q?, 2008 pasged in Arjun Das Manikpuri Vs. State ofChh3ttisgarii&OAersfW.P.(S)Nor6583 of 2006), wfaereby this Court has etrtertainedtiie petitiotrdespitettierebemg altemative remedy ofappeal available. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed on 24.10.1995 on temporary basis as Panchayat Karmi on a fixed pay of Rs. 500/" p.m. On 30.01.2008 (Annexure P/4), the Gram Panchayat resolved to re®iovethe ^ petitioner from ttie po^t of Secretary. Pursuafrt to that by order dated nil (Aimexure P/7), tiie tbrmal order was issued. The fmancial pow€?r ofthe petstioner was withdra1wn mid handed over to one Shri Jethu %am Yadav subsequenfly. 4. Heard leamed counsei, perused the pteadmgs and documents appended thereto. tt appeai^ fhat it is not a case ofremoval from fhe post ofPasxtoyat Kamii. Wifh regard to maintainatoility ofthe petiticaier m view oftihi©fact that statutory appeal is provided us^ier fhe Rxiles, 1995, fhe caitmon thread mmimg in all these cases are ttiat the availability ofalt^mative r©medyis rule ofdiscretion and not one offhe compukions. Iffhe factt are wrt (fl^ High Court m exercise of ite discretionary jurisdiction may entertam fhe petttioner under writ jiirisdiction when fhere is violation of fundamental rights or prisiciples of natural justice or the order passed is wholly without jurisdiction. In the present case, it is neither a case of violation of fundamental rigfcrts nor principles ofnaturaljustice as the appointmeait ofthe petitioner itself was on temporary basis. It is not clear as to whethe?r the appointment ofthe petitioner was made in accordance with law or not. Even if it m fiot made in accordance with law, the petitioner would tiot have any right to the post as well settled by a catena of decisions passed by tfae Supreme Court. 5. In order to settle fhe dispirted facts, it is better tiiat fhe petitiois^r should M^proach ttie attematwe fomm of statutory appeal provided under ttie provisioiK of Rules, 1995, betore mshing to this Court under Article 226 of fhe Constitution. It cannot be said that the appellate auttiorily will not look into infringesnent ofright or violation ofprinciples ofnatural justice while considermg the case ofthe petitioner on facts as wetl as on law. Thvs^ fhis Court decliiws to exercise its discretionary jims€Mcti<m m favour <^ th^ petiticmer. Nothing extraordinary exigts in ttes petition to mvok.e extraordmaryjurisdiction offhis Court. 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed on the gnwt^ of availability of altemative statutory remedy ofappeal. Howe^^ Iiberty is reserve^^to^ petitioner to take recourse to alteTiiative statirt^ fbmm that may be available to him under fhe provisions oflaw. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge