3) ^ In the HisEh Court ofChhattisearh AtBUasBur (C.G.) W.P. N^33-5./06 @3a;'.;-:, f.*,;^] PETITIONER ^ ^- <,<? '..-^ ^^' ^ /^(^ '^IW Shashidhar Paada S/o Loknath < ^ Panda Aged About 52 Years ^- . Ad-IlocUpperDivisionTeacher, Govt. H.S. School, Mahapalli District Raigarh (C.G.) ^- (Presently Discontmued) R/o Village Belariya Post- Banora Distt.Raigarh(C.G.) VERSIIS RESPONDENTS- r^' «iC c)J.,> ^ ^^•' ^ ^ <^^" ^y %%!&Ti ^ <)• ^' 1) State OfChhattisgarh Tlffough Secretary Department OfEducation, D.K.S.Bhawan, Rapiur 2) The Director, Lok Shikshan Sanehalnalaya, Behind Board Of - Secondary Education, Pension Bada,Ratpur(C.G.) 3) District Edueation 0£Bcer, ,- Education, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4) DivisioaalSuperintendent Of Education, Bilaspw BiIaspur(C.G.) 5) StateOfMadhyaPradesfa, / Through Seerctary Department of Education, VaBabh Bhawan, Bhopal(M.P.) <:" WMT PETmON TJNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITtJTIONOF DWIA E&(I. 'i IC303 liUS State of Chhattisaarh & Others Harsh Kumar SatDathi State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226^227 OF THE CONST!TUTION OF INDiA Shri Upendra Bharat & Shri Neeraj Pradhan, for the petitioners. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panei Lawyerforthe Stste. (Passed on 13 day of Januai •,2011) The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure P-14), which was passed on the representation made by the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 25.4.2005 (Annexure P-1 2) passed by this Court in Vi/.P.No. 1529/2005 (Shashidhar Panda & Anotfier v. Stafe of Chhattisgarh & Others), whiie recording the history oftheir appointment and working in service. The order was passed on the issue that the petitioners were 52 years and 53 years oid respectively thereTore, the appointment was beyond the age iimit. On perusai of the order, st is nowhere found that it was recorded in the order that Shsshidhar Panda was 52 years and Harsh Kumar Satpathi Vifas 53 years. !t appears that the officer has taken into consideration the aae mentioned in the cause titie. "^ K- :i-!uiaJ ':'"^ e)^" ihofc 3. ^ Se that as it may, the impugned order 1s vitiated on two counts, firstty It v/as not the case of fres'n appointment and mentioned in the cause title by the petitioners, the same couid^not have been as final without verification pf the facts, when the same was not recorded In the order. The officers have misread and misunderstood the same. Thus, the impugned order dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure P-14) is quashed. 4. it is expected that the State shal! consider the cases of both the petitioners in light of the order dated 2.3.1998 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabaipur, in O.A. No. 888/1997, v/hich according to the petitioners, have aitained finality by the direction issued by this Court for non-compliance of the order dated 2.3.1998 to consider the representation and decide in accordance wit.h law, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. In view of the above, the writ petitions are aliowed. No order asto Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge