^^^ KEeH COURT OF CHHATTCS6ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (5) No. 2423 of 2008 Petition&r Vepsus Re^ondents 1. 2. 3. 4. ftoj Kumar Sahu, 5/o <3iedu Raip 5ahu, aged fldbout 26 years, R/o Reda, Tehsil Sakti, bistrict Jonjgir -Champu {CG} State of Chhatti^gorh, Throuc^i the Secretary, Deportment of Pandiayat & Rural Devebpment, DXS< Bhawwi, Mantrafaya, Raipur (CG) Director 0:>CBichayat), Qihart'isyirh, Raipur (CG). Zila Panchayat, Janjgir-Champa, Oistrict Janjgir-Champa (C6). Through its Chief Executive Officer. Chief Ex&cutive Offia&r, Zifa Panchayat. Jcnjgir-Champa, Distrjct JanJ9ir-Chanipa (CG). Wftrr pErrroiN UN&ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA Singte Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. ^gnlh<yh*i. J. 5hri B- b- 6uru, Advocate for the petition&r. ^iri Yashwant Singh ^iokur, beputy AdvcNcate (Stenaroi for the respondents No. 1 and 2. OMLOftDER (Passed on thte 28th dcy of April, 2008) 1. With the con^ent of fearned counfifel appeoiring for 'riift part'ies, the matter is taken up for final h&arin9. 2- LeGmed couns&l ap^Mring for the pMStitiorusr jsubmits that th& petitior»rwas appointed on th& post of .%»k5hfl Karmi 6rad&-II vitte order dated 22.9.2007 (Annexura P/2). Tliereafter, the petitioner joirNsd his servic&s and started working on th& po^t of Sifk^io Ka^nii 6rad& TE- WithcHjt offording an oj^ortunit^ of hearing, the SBryias^ of 1+»ep&tition&r was terminat&d on 31.3-2(X (Annexure P/l) on th& ground that the N-C-C- cerfrificate produosd by the p&titionBr was Tnakur false. 3. Laarned couns&l api^oring for the petitionar submit5 that the s^sue rassed in thi3 petitiwi is sqixir&ly cover&d by the jydgment ond ord&r aated 14th March, 2008 pfl^sed by this Court jn Writ Petition (S) No. 95/2008 (Ku. Punam &. othars Vs. State of ChhatKsgarh and oth&r^) and oth&r connected matt&rt5 4. Learnad counsel app&aring for tha Stats/Refipondesnts No- 1 cind 2 subnitts that the isssue raijS&d henain hcfcS atready be»icor^luded by the decijSion in the cose of Punam (supra). 5. T^us, this petition <s according^f disposa&d of in tha sam^ tarm^ that the p&titioner b& offorded an opporhinity of hearirsg to &gtabli^i g&nuinerusss of the certifsccrte produG&d by him before padsing an order of t&rminotion. The impu^wd order dot&d 31-3-2(K% (Annexure P/l) is Gccordingty qittsshed. No order asto cost^ Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge