C€IQ7 SINGLE 831m @ ® IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAspUR ‘c.G.y W. P. (S) No.“ 6 ? of 2011 PETITIONER / : Manoj KumaT Sinha, S/o Shri . Domar Singh ‘Sinha, aged about 31 years, R/O'Magarlod, District— Dhaxntari (C.G.) Departmeht, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur(C.G.) v The Collector, Dhamtari, District— Dhamtari (C.G.) Zila Panchayat Dhamtari, through the Chief Executive Off1cer, Dhamtari, District— Dhamtari (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat, Magarlod, through the Chief Executive Offlcer, District—Dhamtari (C.G.) Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh, through the Secretary, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OT THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘, , A VERSUS RESPONDENTS 4/1. State of Chhattisgarh : Through Secretary - Panchayat mm 31mm (Wu) WWW \ WWW mmm WW‘#%€TW amifdqm 8.3.: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P'RITINKER DIWAKER 03.08.201 1 Shri Prateek Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smjta Ghai, RI. for the State. Challenge in the pmsent 7.10.10 (Annexnre P/ 1) passed Janpad Panchayat, Magarlodh terminating the services of the petitioner fgom the post of Shike'ja Karmi Grade Hi. that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of hling appeal under Rule 13 of the (1G. Panchayat Shiksha Kanm' (Redruitment & Promotion) Rules 2007 . However, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the alternative remedy is though available but the same is not emcacious. the parties and perused the I have heard counsel for petition and the documents.’ Admittedly, there exists petition is to the onier dated by the Chief Executive O$cer . wpwwkiw ta 200 State counsel points ou: An alternative remedy for the petitioner to hle an appeal before the appellate authority. Mere saying of the petitioner that by passing the same. Though alternative remedy is not bar for entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but in the case in hand, no such extra ordinary ground has been made by the petitioner to entertain this petition. emcacious is not a ground for 1he alternative remedy is not wmwrm w @ XI—HC 78 Wm 1:1 zoo Mm (Wu) WWW“ WW wm $a1‘fatrm 15 of the considered opinion that dismissed on the ground of Acconlingly, this Court 1 the petition deserves to be alternative remedv. Needless to state that il by the petitioner, the same we authority in a fair and just ma1 any previous order or act and be decided strictly in accordam L the eventuality of ming appeal xuld be decided by the appeliate mer Without being influenced by the appeal if so preferred, shall :e with law. HEW“