•-K WfSfi S:K: .^; itiTHEHKGHGQURT^FJUDiCATUREATBlLASPHRCHHATTfSG&RH W.P. N0. I 2-^-2-72006 Smt. Bebi Tabassum, Aged ahout 30 years; W/o. Mohd. Rroz Khan, R/o. Vlllageand ftost Bhairamgarh, District Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada (CG) RE5PONOEN1TS .^.^- '^y21 ^-^•»v' :>€^^'.': :' • .^'yy^.'-.':..: iftf' ^ ^ VERSUS 1] Stateof Chhattisgarh^ Threugh: SecFetary, Tribat Welfare Deptt., D.K.S. Bhawan,Raipur(CG) 3] y -,-'•? .••'"l sy- 3 ^ ^%i^ V* ^- Collector, Dantewada, DjsttDakshin Bastar, Dantewada(CG) Ojreetor; Panchayat and Gramin Vikas ViBhag, fchhattisgarh, Raipur, Distrid Ra}pur{CG) •4] Chtef Executiye Officer, Janpad Panchayat, . Bhairamgarh, Dtstrict Dantewaaa(CG) 5] Biock Etfycation Officer, jaripad Panchayat, Bhairamgarh, District Dantewada (CG) 6} CMef Executive Officer, Ziia PanGhayat, Dantewada, District Dantewada <CG) WRIT PETSTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QF THE ^NSTiTUTiON OF iNKA HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATnSGARH: BILA8PUR Slngle Beach: Hon'ble Shrl Satish K. Agaihotri, J. W. P. Bo. 1222 OF 2006 Petitioner : Snit. Bebi Tabassuin Versus Respondents : State of Chliattisgarh & Ofhers. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Suiul Otavaai, paael lawyer for fhe respondents, ORALORDER (25th March, 2006) 1. This petition challenges the iinpugned order dated 30.11.2005, (Annexure P-9), passed by fhe respondent No.5, whereby fhe Officer Inchai^e of Prunary School Gaurabeda, Block Bhairamgarh, District Dantewada, has been directed that fhcorder dated 20.10.2005, (Annexure P-5), passed by the Janpad Paachayat, Bhauamgarh, appointing Shiksha Karmi, Grade-III, be not given effect to wifhout permission of District CoUector, Dantewada. 2. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subinits fhat the petitioner was duty selected and appointed as Shiksha Kanni Grade-III, vide order dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure P- 5), passed by the respondent No.6. Thereafter, the petitioner subinitted the joJTiing report on 2.12.2005, (Annexure P-8). Leamed counsel has further subiaitted that the petitioner had joiaed fhe duties on 2.12.2005, itself. 3. The petitioner was infonned fhat the entire selection process appointing Shiksha Kanni Grade-III, has beeh canceUed. It is further contended fhat the petitioner has not 'Y received any written in&riuati.on as yet about canceUation offtie selection proceedin.gs, or his appoiatment. 4. Lear&ed counsel appeanng for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, submits fhat fhe petitioner has never joiaed pursuant to his selection aad appointnient as Shiksha Karmi, Grade-III, as the Annexure P-8 is fhe appUcation uiade by the petitioner to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad paachayat, Bhairam.garh, for his joiaing. It was farfher submitted that since the entire selectioa proceedings have been quashed and new selection process has been iiutiated, the petitioner does not have aay right to the appointinent 5. Be fhat as it inay, leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submits that fhe petitioner has inade a representation, (Aiuiexure P- 11) to fhe Secretary Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe aad Backward Classes, Welfare Department, Govenmient of Chliattisgarh, therefore, fhe respondents ruay be directed to decide fhe said representation within a stipulated period. 6. Haviag heard leamed counsel for the parties, ia the facts aad circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider aad declde the representetion (Aanexure P-11), iu accordauce wifh law, wifhiu a period of three weeks, from fhe date ofreceipt/produGtion ofcopy offhis order. 7. In view of foregoiug, fhis petition staads disposed of. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge c^' .'A•fl