HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha 8: Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma,JJ. @ W.A. No. 32012011 APPELLANTS 1. Nagar Panchayat Kharod, Through it's Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kharod District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). Chief Municipai Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kharod, District Janjgir~ Champa (C.G.) 2. VERSUS _ RESPONDENTS 1. Sanesh Kumar Ratnakar, S/o Himanchal Ratnakar, Aged about 23 years, Viliage Mudpar, P.O. Kharod, Tah. Pamgarh District— Janjgir~ Champa (C.G.) (Petitioner) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration & Development, Mantralay, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur (C.G.} (Respondent No.1). WA. No. 32212011 APPELLANTS 1. Nagar Panchayat Kharod, Through it’s Chief Municipai Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kharod District Janjgir— Champa (C.G.). Chief""*Municipai Gfiicer, Nagar Panchayat Kharod, District Janjgir- Chama (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Savitry Yadava, W/o Murari Lai Yadav, aged about 35 years, Tiwari para Post Office Kharod, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Petitioner) State of Chhattisgarh thrbugh Secretary, Department of Urban Administration & Development, Mantralay, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.1). 3. Collector, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) (Respondent No.2.) p WVAV Nns. 320. 322 & 367 of 2011 @ And W.A. No. 36712011 APPELLANTS 1. Nagar Panchayat Kharod, Through it’s Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kharod District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 2. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kharod, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Sheik Salim Qureshi, S/o Sheik Hirajan Qureshi, Aged about 25 years Vlllage- Mehandl PO Bundeia Via Kharod District Janjglr— Champa (CG) r 2. State of Chhattisgarh through ' Secretary, Department of. Urban Administration & Development, Mantralay, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Ralpur (C G ) (Respondent No 1) 3. Collector District Janjglr—Champa (CG) (Respondent No 2) RIT APPEALS UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DlVlSlON BENC_1‘ ACT 2006 Aggearance: Mrl Avinash Mishra, Advocate for the appellants Mr. AS. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State. .4“ ORAL ORDER (12.08.2011) $UNIL KUMAR SINHA,J. Heard on admission Nagar Panchayat Kharod and the Chief MuniCIpal Officer of the Nagar Panchayat have assailed the validity of order dated 28m February, 2011 passed in WP. (S) Nos. 265, 266 & 267 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By the impugned common order passed in the above three writ petitions, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the private respbndents against the order dated 24.12.2005 passed by the Additional Collector, District Janjgir-Champa canceling their appointments, which were made earlier by the order dated 07.1 1 .2005 on W 223/ W‘A. Nos. 320. 322 & 367 of 2011 the post of Siksha Karmi Grade—Ill for 2 years on probation. The concerned CoHector found serious irregularities in the selection process and it was found that some relatives of the private respondents were members of the selection committee, therefore, the appointments made by Nagar Panchayat were cancelled. The Writ Court. after considering all the grounds, held that it was a case, in which principles of natural justice was to be followed strictly and on mere allegations stigmatic orders cannot be passed even during the probation period. The Writ Court, therefore, allowed the writ petitions’ quashing the impugned orders and a liberty was reserved with .the concerned authorities to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, if so advised. Mr. Avinash Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has not disputed that the orders of cancellation of the appointments were passed by the concerned authorities without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned respondents. Since the orders passed were stigmatic and no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondents before passing the said orders, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the orders of cancellation cannot be sustained and has rightly allowed the writ petitions quashing the concern orders passed against the respective respondents. We also note that the Single Judge has reserved a liberty with the appellants and the concerned authorities to proceed in the matter >in accordance with law, if so advised, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the private respondents. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in these appeals. The appeals are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed summarily. Rahul Sd/- sUNILKUMARsmHA Sdlw ‘1’ Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge Judge