HIGH COURT OF CH.HATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRn;PETlTION,(:81_'No. 2070 of2009 PETITiONERS : 1. Sawan S/o Santosh Banjare, aged about 24 years, Occupation Sen/ice - Shiksha Kamii Grade III Posted at Govt. Primary School Kaitapali. 2. Narendra K'um.ar Banjare 8/0 Heeralal Banjare, aged abo'ut 24 years, Occupatioii Ser^ice, Shiksha Karmi (jrade III Posted at Ciovt. P.rima4y School. Sheetalpur. 3» Mahesh Kumar Sahu 8/0 Chanra Ram Sahu, aged abo'at 22 years, Occupatioii Service, Shiksha Karmi CTiade III Posted at Oovt. Primary School.Jtaalpali. 4. Smt Bhag^vati. Sahu W/o Sunil, about 25 years, Occiipatioii Service, Shiksha Kamii (jrade III Posted at Govt. Primary School Ciiirra.bliara. 5. Smt, Pushplata Sao W/o Vamn 8a.o. aged about 25 years, Occypatioii Sei-vice, Shikslia Kanni Grade III Posted at Govt. Primary School ~ Kodopali, 6. Dmesfa Kumar Parmar, S/o Mainu Ram Pamiai^ aged about 25 years, Occupatioii Service, Shiksha Karmi Grade III. All the petitioners are Govemment servant posted .as a Sliiksha Karmi Class III Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasam.mid (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDEN'rS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through. The Secretory, Panchayat aiid Social Welfare, D.K.S. B'hawan, Raipur (C.Cy.) 2, Director, Pasichayat, ^R-aipur, Di^b-ict Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector, Mahasamiind, District Mahasamuiid (C.G.) 4» Chief Executive -Offscer, Jaapad Panchayat Basiia^ District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5. District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasam'ynd (C,G.) WR.IT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF 'IBE CONSGTmTfION OF INDIA Anut SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asmhotri. J. Present: SM Suml Saliu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for fhe State/respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5. ORALORDER (Passed on 22nd day of April, 2009) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the law with regard to compliance of principles of natural justice m respeet of cancellation ofappointment ofShiksha Kamiis has been settled down in the matter of Ku. Punam & Others v. State of C.G. & Others1 and Mrityunj<^) Shiikla v. Mumcipal Corpn. Raipur & Others2. Shri Sahu further submits that the petitioners could not place the above stated judgment before the Director in the course of proceedings iri case No. 73 A-89/2007-2008. 2. Shri Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents 1 to 3 and 5 submits that ends ofjustice would be met if the matter is remanded back to consider a Jfresh in the light of the judgment and orders passed in the matter of Ku. Punam (mpra) and Mrityunjay Shukla (supra). 3. Having regard to tfae facts situation of the case, where admittedly tfie law settled by this Court has not been pointed out to the respondent No. 2, the impugned order dated 21.08.2008 (Aimexure P/l) is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Director, Panchayat, Raipur to consider fhe dispute a fresh in the light of the judgment and orders passed in the matter of Ku. Punam (supra) andMrityunjay Shiikla (supra). No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 12008(2)CGLJ366 22009(1)CGLJ97