»•*<' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR WRIT PETIT10NIS) No. 679 Tukesh Kumar Taram, S/o Neer Singh, aged about 21 yeara, Occupation Shiksha Kamii Grade - nl, Govt. Primary School, Akhmeta- Janpad Paiichayat, Koilibeda,-District North Baster - Kanker (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Paiichayat & Rural Department, Maiitralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Colleetor, District Kanaker (C.G.) Chief Executive OfBcer, Zila Panchayat, Kanker, North Baster, Kaiiker (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Koilibeda, District Norfh Baster, Kanker (C.G.) Block Education OfEicer, Koilibeda, District North Baster. Kanker. WRIT PETmON LTNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTnLTTON_OF DSIDIA SB: Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. Agmhotn. J. Present: Shri D.N.Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govennneiit Advocate for the State / respondeat No. l,2aad5. (Passed on 28th day of March, 2008) With fhe consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up fbr hearing fmally. 1. The netitioner was aopointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III oa 08.08.: (Annexure P/3) iu Primary School, Akmet, Janpad Panchayat Koilibeda, District North Basfar, Kanker. All of a sudden, without affording any -'''• opportunity ofheariag, the appointment offhe petitioner was cancelled on 27.11.2007 (Armexure P/l) on fhe alleged ground that fhere were grave irresiilarities in the selection list. 2. Leamed eounsel appearing for fhe petitioner submits tfaat fhe question of law as to whether an employee is entitled to show cause notice before caacellation of appointment has already beea considered by ttus Court in a "(S> bateh ofmatter byjudgment aad order dated 14 March, 2008 in W.P.(S) No. 95/2008 (Ku. Punam & Othei-s Vs. State ofChhattisgarh & Others) and other connected matters. This case is squarely covered on the question oflaw. Shri Gupta, leamed Govemment Advocate submits that so far as the question oflaw is concemed, it has already been considered and decided by this Court in the above stated judgment. However, the State be pemutted to verifv the facts offhe case. In view of tfae foregoing, this petitioa is allowed in the same terms i.e. petitioner be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness, •trufhfalness ofthe documents submitted by him for obtainiag appointment on the post and to put forward his case before his appointment made earlier is caiicelled.. The impugned order dated 27.11.2007 (Aimexure P/l) in respect offlie petitioner, shall not be given effect to until the direction meiitioned hereinabove, is complied with. ' ^-- - Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrl t Judge Ajnit