IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NQi^Bo) 72005 PETITIONERS ^^ .^~ :-1J Kumari Pratibha Yadav D/o Anand Yadav, aged 29 years, R/o behind rest house, Janjgir, Tah. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa [C.G.]. ^; ^^ >"" '%^v?'v ^^"" RESPONDENTS ^ ^" Sanit Kumar Sidar, S/o Govindram, aged about 30 years, R/o village Sarkha, Tah. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa [C.G.]. VERSUS :-1] State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.]. 2] The Collector,Janjgir-Champa [CG] 3] Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa [C.G.]. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ i^" s^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.3801 OF 2005 PETITIONERS Kumari Pratibha Yadav & Another RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Pritinker Diwaker, J. Present:- Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 &2. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate forthe respondent No.3. 1. 2. 3. 4. ORDER rORAU (Passed on this 16th day of December, 2010) Heard learned counset for the parties. Chaltenge in the present petition is to the order dated 29.7.2005 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.2 by which the petitioners have been prohibited from performing their duties ,^s Shiksha Karmi Grade III and further the execution of their appointment order dated 21.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) has also been prohibited. Case of the petitioners is that on 21.6.2005 vide Annexure P-3 they were appdinted as Shiksha Karmi Grade III and pursuant to this appointipent they joined their duties on 23.6.2005 (Annexure P-4) and 27.6.2005 (Annexure - P/5). However the order impugned has been issued by the Collector under Section 85 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 prohibiting the execution of selection and appointment of the petitioners as wetl as other simitarty situated persons on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. The order impugned has been passed mainly on the ground that after enquiry conducted by three Government officials it has been found by the Collector that there were certain irregularities in the appointment of Shiksha Karmis including the submission of sport certificate, experience certificate and the scout certificate. The order impugned has been passed in respect of 25 candidates induding the petitioners. Counsel for the petrtioners submits that along with the petitioners, by the same order appointment of Ku. Anjulata Rathore & Ku. Gita Rathore was ^,..J./ 1 E Gowri also prohibited. However, when they filed Writ Petition Nos. 3848 of 2005 and 3782 of 2005 this Court vide orders dated 15.4.2009 & 4.10.2010 set aside the said order granting liberty to the respondents to take action in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the said petitioners and by following the principle of natural justice. He submits that the present petition can also be disposed of in the light of the orders passed in the said cases i.e W.P.Nos. 3848 of 2005 and 3782 of 2005." Counsel for the respondents admit that names of the petitioners and Ku. Anjulata Rathore as well as Ku. Gita Rathore find place in the same order dated 29.7.2005 and the petition can be disposed of in terms of the said orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of in terms ofthe orders dated 15.4.2009 & 4.10.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 3848 of 2005 and 3782 of 2005 and also in the light of the decision of this Court in Ku. Punam and others v. State of C.G. and others.At this stage it has been pointed out by the parties that in the case of the petitioners ultimately the certificate submitted by them has been found to be genuine and to this effect the report has already been sent to the Collector by the Director, Panchayat. Be that as it may, in the event of any action taken against the petitioners, they may be given an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. -&- ^ "> 1 2008 (2) CGLJ 366