IH THE H3.GH CO'QSE@S.3SDWySQSE,.t AT J&BALEDR .(M«Efc.^ •B,P> ,,Ho< _^2^/95,^-<l^-0 PETITIONERS il I1! RBSPOHDEKTS s l«j aari Sban]$ac»Pafcel.-S/0 K^tpa,. Ram Pa.tel^.,aged,at?eiat^3Q],y^^-s. Bss-i-d^nt .of .K.uB.jeSalDx.i,. < .. . Teh» & Bistt. ^Raigary.;:^,..... 2. Jagdisb Prasad Patel, s/o . , Shri. setkamar Patel, aged... about 27 Years. Resident. of Village Kuiijedabrl.Tebsil & Dststt* Ralgarl-L.' 3< sal.i.isram.Hayak, S/o Sbri. Radbesbyam Nayak, aged abogt 27 'years. R/o'Village Jhainpali, Teh. & Bistt. Ralgarb. 4« Jagdish Patel, s/o Balak Ram Patel, aged about 30 years. Resident of Karichhapar..,„ Tsh. & Distt. Raigarh* . ,. 5. Aran Kumar Choudhary, S/o , . Babulal Choudhary, age<3 .afeQiit, 27 ye ars» R/o Kodatarai.. , . ., Teh. & Distt. Ratgarb. ,^. 6« Doiendra KumarPatel, s/o , Shrj.. Vedram Patel.^aged^gljQBt 29 years, B/o Kabriha,,... Teh. & Dlstt. Raigarfa. .,.,, 7» Ramgopal Cboadbary, s/o s^si^^-. Man.bodhaa Choadhary, aged^, . .. about 29 years, R/o NandeU».. Teh. & Dlstt.: Raigarh..,. . 8. sint. .E.aj KuiBari CboadbsK'x».-.,.. W/o Sbri* Nj,tyalianil,:@3f9u^yary. aged about '28 ; years^JR/o Kondatarait Teh. & laa.str-tct, Kaigarh (H»P)t -VERSUS- ^ lo' State of H.P. throygh secretary Pancbayat Departaeht, Bhopal. ^ ^ z. 3.^ ^s 4* The Commissio'ner, Bilaspar . Collector, Raigach.. : , ','^ Chief Execlut..Lye 10£Eic^,ga%^!'!l.i» ^anpaa ^P anchayat^ ^(^^>ES^|| ^:j,|j;. Tel-i.: & Bisttt'.Raj.gaiggS!^ |sij|g.|||g;;; ^*:^a^ll^:.:^^. ;• •;.,;'.:; ir W1 // 02 /^ ^ ^ ""> .^ 5 s c 9 5 5»j ,'^tce^]TesK^ot,,& eresi.^eflt.^h.Uts^g.,..^ ., Sainit.i.t^Tacpad.Psochgx'abt ,Tstis-i.l,a4d.. Dlstt»-.ga.igaE'l?^';,.;^.. • : -."-.1 ' ;• 6'» Kaush-LkKE* gradhan»'ShI]cshaKari'B.t... Class II> Priaary school CIiapptira, Vd.kas Khand, Pusoar. 3» Suresh Buri Gpswami, Shiksha Karm-t, Class II, Primary school Rengalpali, VikasKhand, Pusour. ,__.... Middle 8* Heer.aj Kamar cboadhary, sbiksha Karrai, Class'III, Govt.^H.S.Scfaool, 'KOapall, .; Vikas Khana pasoar.. i 9. NaresJb-KE.. Nayak. sblKaba KarKil., „,..,. Class.J-11. Govfc* Er.i.mary sebool. ,, , Ghaa.Hiaarl.si,. jAKas .Ktaand.:gusour'» . . . I0«.M.i-caUA .S^asa^.Cljoadttars'* .shiksh.a^gaciai,. Clas^.yf.Il Erlfiiary ^ebooj,,. .Bijita,; „.' '. •' V3.&aa^e3iana..Ea.sovtf,., . ' 1Iv X<akest?»?ar».Cj:as a4 .S. sbe 1, ,sb ?IiS,»g9Ki"4,«, Cl.ase lAf Priaary seboQ.l.t ^s;.KsswaS^-t>».. ViKa?^itian<3.pasourK,,., :: •• • ?- '. 12* ISAsIu- -KlffBar ,Patel, .SiyUt^ba^Karai.,,.. , ».. Ciass...IXJ, Goyt,:,.Mi(3d.],e "Scboo.l., „.„., • . Telig§,j.l,..y.i-kas .Kband .^qsot.ir, , .. ,;1 13» KQroari.QiKJa. .^atel, sla.ycahgi ..Kajrm:!,..;.,,..,,,- Class,,III» Sovt. I>rMBars',ScIic>o3..,,.,,^,''.: Bolerdeepa (suri) ViKas'KtlaEUa !>as09e.«». 14» K^ma Sbankar,E>aadey, ..sh.UtsIi^.Karm.i,.,,.,,..-.. Class.,111, Siace.TeacKer, H«S* Scbdolt iTatarl, VlKas Xhand ?USOUF» Resldenfc of Respondent Ho« 6 to:,jl4.-«. Teh. & D.i.stt.: Ral.garh;(H.P)» WRIT .PETITION ,UHDER &BTIGEB',226/227^QE. THE GQHSTITUTIOB OE,IHDI& ' - ...l XI-HC-22 'T5?':qFIRPT,'SgtW7S, iqwj'My *<i*<ctf8>flra»..h!A.^a7/%^°^ sn^i^n R-ii* an^i ^iiW <ff^q aii^r^graT^ifei Shri Awadh Tripathi, coimj Shri S.C. Verma, Paael Laij Shri B.D. Guru, couasel fo| Petitioners have preferreij 226/227 of the Constitution o| 1511\ 199 (Aiuiexure P/1) pass^ Appeal case No. 12/89 A-15/9^ passed by the CoUector ia Appea^ The luaia grievaace of fhe) as Shiksha Kanni, Grade III fherefore, as per fhe Govenuii^ irauted fhe extra niarks for thei graated. Therefore, fhey had CoUector raisiag their grievaac} not decided, petitioners preferre4 with fhe appUcation under Sectii( that appeal was dismissed a^ preferred the appeal before fhe| order dated 15/11/99 tbe Conit: upholding the order of fhe CoUec( I have heard learaed coun^ Learaed counsel for the niade a representation before fh^ experienee aad giviag fheia ina): ^)|<lI<n-illT •HI*1<*lt ^ fSl^1 •ILf^l+$t< ^? siPffEi sii^r :>el for the petitioners. iyer, for i-espondents ao. 1 to 3. r respondents no. 6 to 14. 1 this writ petition. under Article India chaUeilgiug the order dated d by fhe Comiiiissioner, Bflaspur in f-2000 aad order dated 04/10/99 Case No.l/A-89/99-2000. petitioners is fhat they had worked tt-om 01/12/1997 to 30/04/1998, nt policy fhey ought to have been u~ experience and fhe saine was not filed the representation before fhe :s. When their representation was an appeal before the Collector along >n 5 offhe Limitation Act. However, tiine barred agaiast which they Coininissioner aad vide impugned nissioaer also disinissed fhe appeal tor. el for the parties. petitioners subuuts fhat petitioners s CoUector for consideration of fheir 'ks for their experience. They were M Ls>W ^•v XI-HC-22 ^... 311^1 ^iT P;-fi.<* 31(^1 a>*<i'»^iTO '3"^ -qNK-lf, ®fl1<1'IS,!»<dlti^< WVRff VtlWfi I^B^T' SII^I'TOITWito C'2>1 hid petjti' under fhe impression fhat fheir when their representation was Therefore, the delay was on was sufScient cause for not prej the leamed CoUector ought to appeal. Learaed counsel for the W.P.No.3481/2000 this Court aspect and allowed fhe writ to consider fhe appeal on its owi( On the other hand, les^ submits fhat as he appcal wasj rejected. Haviag heard fhe leamed] regard to the facts and fhe unpugned oiders passed by the appUcation under Section 5| affidavit filed by HarishaiLkar P{ CoUector ought to have condon^ petitioners arc low paid impression fhat siace ffaey hav^ CoUector, fheir grievaace wUl Vjs not required to ffle fhe appeal. have taken took a leiiient view condonation of delay in filing grievance will be taken care of, but |aot decided, they ffled fhe appeal. acctiunt of bona fide mistake aad fhere ^erruig fhe appeal iu tiiae, therefore, 'hlave condoned fhe delay ia filmg the circumsttaces 'rillci'll'i ^mvS ^ fsc6 tfalt^K i; sfpgii 3n^[ petitioners further argued fh.at iu passed orders and considered fhe ^ion. and directed the Coihinissioner inerits. ' taed counsel for fhe respondents tune barred, the same was rightiy couasel for fhe parties and having ofthe case and having perused Ittie CoUector and Coiruiussioner aad of the Limitation Act along wifh fhe ^tel, I am ofthe opinion fhat leamed the delay ia filing of fhe appeal as aud fhey were uader the made fhe representation before the taken care of, therefore, fhey were fTherefore, leamed CoUector ought to as fhere was sufficient ground for appeal. Therefore, ia view of the ein^loyees ofifhe F4/ ,^ Wft»] ^ - laja.AittiE tt^US^fcSj. la.a^ite a§pnf oopeqg -3.^ '/PS IUA siip 'saonoaiip pire STIOI^B^ s^l ao teadde gq^ appap puB jgq^ o^ paiogjtp si jo^oanoo aq^ pag 3?^ 66/01/l70 paZEp japjo paugndim ain Aq passed 66/TT/ST paiE pSM.OTtB ST TOTtI^ad IUA 3Ip 'ggBo 3^ K^ttelifejiE.jb M£UEJ1J,?>&] ), IU'MI. LlkUjh]^ •sapu jgd SB Adoo pagi^isQ •jo pasodsip spireis noBnsd psqo presaiojB aqi T^I^ •si.uam UMO ]Q TIAO s^i no lesddB SER. gjo^sai ^as are Jo^oanoo ai^ ^q pgssed PHB mclStipg 'JSTIOtSSTOTOIOO ^spxo paiigndxai sq^ pue :0 SSOTOtsamojIO pTEBS^BJ SAOqe fiaiaMaiBiai^uE ifeUffeJWItlh ^WV^ 'ai^&S'tElkU^ fe£ ZZ-3H-IX