{ESE CGURT G'F CHEATTISGARH AT BELASI’UR WRIT PETI'i‘IGN (S) Non 18M ofZWS - RESPONDENTS ?ETETIONER : Ku. Sarita Paikra D/o Heera Lal F’aikra, aged about 22 years, Resiciem of Viilage Bokramuda, Biock Sakti, District 3’anjgir—Champa (CG) VERS§$ Staie of Chhaitisgarh, Through the Secretary, Paachayat & Viiiage Development, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawari, Raipur. 2. The Commissioaer, Triba1 welfare, Mantralaya, Raipur. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panehayai, Sakti, District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) 4. The Coilec‘ior, Janjgir-Champa (CG) 5. The Chief Executive OfEcer, Zila .Panchayat, Janjgir— Champe {c.G.) WRIT PETYHON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONS’HTUTION OF ENDIA SB: gen’aa'ie Shri Satish K Agniimtri. .3. ?resem: Shfi Prakash Miswa, Advocate for the peti’doner. Sim Viiiay Harit, Deputy Advoeate General for the State / respoandent No. 1, 2 and 4. ()RAL ORDER (Passed on 27"; day of March 2008) The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade H on 16.08.2007 (Amexure W2) in Midéle School, Bokramuda. Block Sakti. District Janjgir— Champa. A1} of a sudden. without affording any opportunity of hearing, tile appointment ofthe petitioner was canoeiied 021 17.{)3.2008 (Annexure P/l) on the alieged ground that the semis certiiioate produced by the petitioner was 210$ genuiiie. / \\V \ Amit Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tha‘t the question of law ag to whether an employee is antitied to show cause notice even to examine ihe genuinsness of the document, has already been considered by this Cami in a batch of matier by judgmen‘i and order dated ‘ 4m March, 2908 in W .P.(S) No. 95/2908 (Ku. Punam & Others Vs. Siam of Chhatiisgazh & Oehers) arad other eonnec$ed matters. "i”his ease is squareiy covered on the quesiion of iaw. Shri Hark, Rearmed Deputy Advocate Gener’a’i submits mat so far as the question of law is concerned: it has already been consiciered and decided by til-is Court in the ahove stated gudgnerit. However, the State be pennitted to verify the facts ofthe case. In View of the foregeiiig, this petition is aiiowed in the same terms i.e. petitioner be afforded an opportunity of hearing to estabiish genuineness. tuithfuiness ofthe documents submitted by her for obtainitig apeoizitment on the post. The impugited order shail not be given etfeet to until the direetioii i13311:0 113d 1 he1B3“éhwe L. O " a). itg ‘yQmpiii‘dvvit}. i ‘. Sd/.. Satish K. Agnihntri t..., U3