.^ 41 (^) f HIGH OT.mT QF CHHA.TTISGARH AT BTT.ASPIJR Wilf,FetiiioitA.S)..Nu.249?of200S PETTTTONER^ : Smt. Saroj Mfliidavi aged abo"t 28 yearg, W/o Bhupat Rfo Deharipam, Gh^i^^manpur, Distt. Rajiiandgaon. ^T.RSTJS ' !- The State of Clihattisgarh, Tlirougli Secretary, Paiichayat aiid Rural Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The CoUector, Kanker. 3. Chief Execufive Officer, Janpad Paiichayat Koilibeda, Distt Uttar Bastar KatA:er. 4. Block Eclucation OfRcer, Block Development, Koylibeda, Distt- Uttar Bastar. (V»7RTTPETTTTON IJNDER ARTTCTE 226 OF THE CONRTTTTmON OF INDTA) (SB: Hon'Ne Mr. Satish K. AgiiihotrtJ.) pregent. : Sliri Parag Kotecha., Advoc^te fbr the petitioner^ Slm AJok Bakashi, Govt»Advocate for the State/respondents. QRALORDETR. (Passed oit 01st day ofMay, 2008) With the conseiit of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fiiially. 1 Tiie petitioiier was appoiiited as Shiksha Kamii Grade I!! 011 08.08.2007 (Aimexure P/l) at Janpad Panch?!}^! Koylibeda, District North Bastar Kaiiker. All of a suddeii, withoirt affiirdiiig aiiy opportunity of hearmg^ the appoi.ot.merit ofthe petitioner was caiiceiled 011 2-8.11-2.007 (Amiexiire P//2) oii the alleged ground that there was i»TegiiIarit3'riii the appoii'itmeiit. 2. Leamed coun^c! appearing fbr the petitioiier siibmits that the question of law as to whether aii emolovee is eHtitled to %hov<'r cause iiotice even to examiiie the genumeness ofthe document, has already been considered by this Court iii a batch of matter by judgmeat aiid order dated 14 March, 2008 in .^ ^. ^ .1 Sa1iu <b, W.P.(S) No. 95/2008 (Ku. Pumm & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) asid other connected matfers. This case is squarely covered on the quegtionoflaw. 3. Sliri AJok Baklishi/leamed Govt. Advocate, subniits that so far as the questioii of law is coiiceiiied, it has already beeii coiisidered and decided by thi? Coiirt iii the above stated jiiclgme-nt/ FIowever^ thc' State be permitt.ed to ^T^rifv the facts ofthe case. 4. Iii view of the foregoiiig, this petitioH is allowed m the same teniis L€. petitioiier be a^rded aii opporturiit}^ of hearing to establish gemimeness, tmtl'ifiilness ofthe documents submitted by her for obtainiiig appomtment on the post. Tlie impu^ied order shall iiot be given efFect to imtil the direction mentioiied hereinabove, is complied with. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1