HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ PetitioMS) No. 6021 of 2006 Petitioner Smt. Tikam Bai, D/o. Shri Bhutu, Aged about 40 years, Caste Bhoi, R/o. Village Madeli, Block Khurud, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). Versus Respondents 1) State of Chhattisgarh - through the Secretary; Panchayat &' Social Weifare Department, DKS. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Director, Women and Child Development Department, Raipur (CG)‘ 3) The Collector, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 4) The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Khurud, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 5) The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development, Block Khurud, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 6) Gram Panchayat, Madeli, Block Khurud, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). 7) Kumari Bai, W/o. Duryodhan Sahu, Village ‘ Madeli, PS Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). (Writ Petition Article under Article,2_26/2.27 of the Constitution of India ) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri PR. Patankar, counselforthe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri R.S. Patel, counsel forthe respondent No.7. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15‘ February;2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the respondent No.7 has been made on the basis of forged documents including marks-sheet. Learned counsel further submits that the appointment of the respondent No.7 is accordingly bad and illegal, thus, the same be quashed. 2) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 submits that the allegation of the petitioner is Without any basis. Even otherwise, in the light of the judgment and order dated 9-2-2007 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 803 of 2007 (Smt. Mamta Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), the appeal against the action of the Chief Executive Officer is maintainable before the Collector, Dhamtari; 3) Be that as it may, since the petition has been filed here on 2-11-2006 and notices have been issued to the respondents, it is not expedient to dismiss the matter on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy, at this stage, as the same may prejudice case of the petitioner on account of delay in taking recourse to the statutory appeal to the Collector. The facts are disputed which cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties. Thus, in the interest of justice, the case is referred to the Collector, Dhamtari, to decide the disputes involved in this petition expeditiously, in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass the order. 4) In view of foregoing, the petition is disposed of. a l Sd/— i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raju-