^'- ^^ »-"\^'^•\v; c^^^ ^y:.^ ^TR^ft'q ^^^T '^PTT^T^T ^TfriH7r^ ftcTRT^Y (^.1IT.) ^ W.P. fS)NO. '^^3> /2011 S.B. ^ ^r^T^T f^f? f^TT •aft ^rpTi'^T f^T? ^"? ^T'H"^PT 40 ^f ft41^-ft TTTTT 1Tt'7^-f^:7T^TR, ^T^.-^^T, f^T^TT-'cFi'^T (??.TT.) .. .. ..'znf^r^T^crf f^0^[ 'EpTft^PT^' '5TP?PT ^RT - 1. ^r^, ^^FTH ^ 7T^'TJT tol^ ^TPT 'E?.7T.^TR:r'?r ^r^y (^.Tr.) 2. W^'Ss-'Cf, ^t^TT, f^T^fT-^^sTT (^.TT.) s. ^^r ^T^^T^T^ srf^rft, TT^T^PT TTcff, f^r^rT-'cFt^TT (^.Tr.) .. ^vR^KPm ^ ^r^^f/'^ ^nf^r^T sr^pfpT sr"^^^ 226 / 227 'RT?cfr?T ^T'teTPT I vj^^cj-a zrTf^^N^rf ^t sfN ^ PfHf^lRsld f^^T ^TT^ H^T t :- *11*1CTI 'S'ST r^Mld<4, ^Hl-M^Ko, fsj^1t<H^< ^^.....WG^.l^J.'^^ ^TT^?T 'q^T (1?^^) <3TI^T ^T T^thF '? TT^T 31T^T i^rNr I^TTW^f^T 37T^T d1 |SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava* J.1 13.6.2011 Shri Rajendra Patel, coun^el Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panejl No. 1 & 2, on advance copy. Heard on admission, This petition has been order dated 9.2,2011, by whichj fhe post of Shikshakarmi allegations of submission of for^ Leamed counsel tbr the order of termination was pa^ hearing, against which, a writj registered as W.P. (C) No.577^ dated 12th January, 2010. respondent aufhori.tv have ps| wifhout ajBfordiag opportunity of petitioner never submitted anyj is clear from the certified copy the petitioner obtained subse^ Act. ^led by fhe petitioner aggrieved by [ftie appoiiitment ofthe petitiouer on Grbde-III has been cancelled on fhe ked certi&cate. On fhe other hand, leanijed the petitioner has an efficacio^is nnrier fhe provisions of Chhattisgarh <^Nt<n<fli Hi^<rff ^f Fs^l ^^K '^'3?1^T3T^T ?1 for the petitioner. Lawyer for the State/respondents t)etitioner submitted that earlier, an |sed wifhout giving opportunity of petition was filed before this Court |/09, which was aUowed vide order He submits that fhereafter, tlie 3|ssed impugned order on 9.2.2011 hearing. He also submitted fhat the |certificate ofD,Ed. (2nd year), which jofcomputer print (Annx. P-3), which luenfly under Right to Information counsel for tlie State submits fhat remedy of preferring an appeal Panchayat (Appeal_ and + ^ XI-HC—78 TST ^l^ld'M, %?Tl1-H4t<o', [®l<rtl-H^< *il»4<?ir^<HI|ct» "^ 200 3T^T TT5W (<Ti^f35f^T) ^TT^T ^?T'f^ThfT >^8n w^r'^Tfbp' ^RTOT^f^T ^TT^T -z- ^. Praveeo. suymit Revision) Rules, 1995 (hereinaft|e He subinits that fhe petitionerj iastead of flliiig this writ pet( impugned order shows that Court, in earlier round of petitioner on 22.3.2010 and granted to fhe petitioner to as no explanation has been si passed. Consideriag that there remedy of filmg appeal/revisioi 1995 and taking into consider^ and raised by fhe petitioner i^i entertain fhis writ petition. Hoj1 prefer appeal/revision under remedy is taken by fhe petition^ competent aufhority uiider thej month from today, the authcjrity niatter on its own nierits ^i Umitation. sr referred to as uthe Rules of 1995s) ought to have preferred an appeal Ition. He further submits that the fhe order was passed by this l^tigation, notice was given to flie ^iereafter another opporturiity was his defaece till 16.12.2010, but, ibmitted, mipugned order has been of. °hNfd4i^^Rpraf ^ ^S TT^^E< ^T ^ff^T 37T^T exists alternative and efiicacious under fhe provision of fhe Rules of ^.tion aU the gourds as are available (1 the petition, I am not inclined to jwever, the petitioner is at liberty to the Rules of 1995. In case such a ^r by filing appeal/revision before fhe Rules of 1995, within a period of 1 shall consider and decide fhe ithout going into the question of With the aforesaid obsen(ation, the petition is finally disposed Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 4-