^%-^SJ f^i!t SIKSIE BENI-N ,^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. ^tA% /2009 PETITIONERS / 1] -K^ -n ^ /y / / .J^-~ /' ^. ^.<r^ A^W <}^ ^ l%y..<A" ^- Q"' —^' / 2] ^ 3J Ramesh Kumar Samantrai., S/o. Shankarcharan., Aged about 25 years., R/o. village Jhilmila., Police Station & Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) Mahendra Kumar Bhoi, S/o. Moharsai Bhoi, Aged about 23 years, R/o. village Chattigirola, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) Dalpati Tandi, Aged about 35 years, S/o. Ramdas Tandi, R/o. village Bhotaldih, Police Station & Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1] ^' ^.' / 2] -3] .4] .,51 .6] ..7] '/ State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Nagariya Prashasan and Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Director^ Nagariya Prashasan and Vikas Vibhag, Raipur and Bastar Division, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Joint Director, Nagariya Prashasan and Vikas Vibhag, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Nagar Panchayat^ Saraipali, through: its Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Saraipali., District Mahasamund (CG) Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) Collector-cum-District Election Officer, Mahasarnund (CG) Collector, Mahasamund, Mahasamund (CG) District ® WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition fS) No. 448 of2009 Petitioners Ramesh Kumar Sainantrai & others Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Honlalc Shri Satish K. Agmhotri J.) Sfari Manoj Paraojpe,Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Paael Lawyer for the rcspondents No. 1, 2, 3, 6 &7 /State. Shri Re^hvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the respondents NQ, 4 & 5, ORDBRforali (Passed on this 10th day of November, 2009) Heaid. 1. The petitioners, by fhds petition, challenge fhe legality and vaUdity ofthe order dated 27. 10.2008, passed by fhe Coiaector & Distdct Election Ofl&cer, Mahasaaiund, whercby fhe appomtaient orders ofthe petitioners have been cancelled. 2. Learaed counsel appearing for fhe petitioners would submit fhat fhe petitioners were appointed vide orders dated 10,10.2008 (Annexure P/9, P/10 & P/11) on the posts of Pump-Kuli and Mall. The appoiatmeiit orders of the petitioners were passed by the Chief Municipal OflBcer, Nagar Paaichayat, SaraipaU, District Mahasamiiad, after foUowiag due process of selection, ia accordance wifh fhe constitutional provisions of appomtment By the iaipugned order dated 27.10.2008 (Annexurc P/l) the appoiatment orders of fhe petitioners were c^iceMed on fhe ground fhat fhe appointmentswere made during ftoe exisftence of the mddel code ofconduct imposed for Assembly Election, 2008. 3. Shri P. K, Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for fhe respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 /State, relyiag on para 9 offhe retura, woirid submit that the appointment orders were passed on 10.10.2008, prior to the enforcement of the model code of coiiduct ia Assembly Elecrtion 2008, as fhe inodel code ofconductwas enforced on 14.10.2008. ^- 4. ^ Haviag heard learaed counsel for fhe pardes and haviag perused fhe pleadiags aad docuniente appended fhereto, it is evident fhat fhe impugned order dated 27.10.2008/ canceling the appointnient oiders dated 10.10.2(X)8 was passed 011 the ground fhat fhe appointoaient of fhe petitioners were laade dunng the existence offhe model code of conduct during Assembly Election, 2008. The State/aufhorities have later on, by way of retura, clarified fbe position tiiat fbe model code of conduct was not ia existence when fhe appointaient orders were passed on 10.10.2008. Thus, cancelmg fhe appoiatoaient orders was wifhout aay basis. Even ofherwise, fhere is no ofher reason for caacelmg fhe appoiataient orders, except fhat fhe appomtoaient orders were passed diirmg the existence of fhe niodel code of conduct due to assembly election. The respondents have failed to prove that the model code of conduct m assembly election was in existence on 10.10.2008. In view of the foregoing, ftie iiapugned order dated 27.10,2008 (Annexure P/l) is not sustamable m law, The impugned oider is accordingly quashed, The petition is allowed to fhe above extent. No order asto costs, Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge