BB!- BK c.-^- \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.^/.O..OF 2009 PETITIONER B ^K .^^ v'? '.•tf^--'" ..•••• ^s^""' .^^y' ^ Ku. Panchkumari Painkra D/o. Shri Deenbandhu Painkra, aged about 30 years, Multipurpose Health Worker (Female) Comniunity Health Center Lailunga Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ^y ^<6° »./ l1^"" RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. KlB li^k? • 2. 3. '^Wfs^ "s% •^ i:y /' - : ~s 'A, ./ IS.8 v^' ^-^^ 4. ^. ^" ^n^. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Health Services Raipur Dist.Raipur (C.G.) Chief Medical Officer District Hospital Raigarh Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) Block Medieal Officer Community Health Center Lailunga Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) WmT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE £OUNSTITUTIONOF INDIA. ^xa.d-f^s'L' HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6810 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ku. Panchkumari Painkra. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bleShri Satish K. Aemhotri. J, Present: ShriR.S.Patel, Advocate forthepetitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 20th dayof November, 2009) With the consent ofleamed counsel appearing for fhe parties, the petition is heard finally. 1. By this petition, the petitioner, impugns the legality and validity ofthe order dated31 October, 2009 (Annexiu'e—P/l) whereby the pefitioner has been removed from the post ofMultipurpose Health Worker (Female) on the ground that she has failedto submit the permanent caste certificate and domicile certificate, in spite ofaffordirig sufficient and reasonable opportunity. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg for fhe petitioner submits that the petitioner,! who belongs to Klanwar caste under theSGhefluled Tribe category, was; appoirrted on the post ofMultipurpose HealthWorker (Female) by orderl datgd 22 August, 2003 (Annexure P/6) andthereafier, shejouied in ttie service on 27 August, 2003 (AnneXure P/7) at Community Healfli Ceiitre, Nawagaon, Lailunga. It is further contended that at the fime ofi joimng, the petitioner submitted a caste eertificate and domicile it;l. i.il: certificate, which were accepfed by the respondent authorities. However, wifhout affordmg proper opportunity of hearing, vide order dated 31 October, 2009 (Arinexure P/l), the services of the petitioner has been terminated in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Thus, this petition. 3. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioaer, perused the pleadings and fhe documents appehdedthereto. 4. From pemsal of condition No. 6 offhe appomtment order dated 22 August, 2003 (Annexure P/6), it appears that fhe candidates were required to get their documents verified, whicK were submitted alongwith the application. In case, it is fpundthatany ofthe documents are forged, their services may be terminated at once. 5. Sti far as the Gontention offhe petitioner that the petitioner has received fhe domicile certificate andpermahent caste certificate on 23 October, 2009 and 16th Qctober, 2009 (Amexure P/9 colly.)fi-om the competeDlt authority is concemed, the petitioner ought to have subrnitted the permanent easte certificate and the domicile Cei-tifiGate at the time of submittmg appUcation or at the tiiye:ofjbmmgitsel£,but the same has.Bat been done. The permaiient caste cerfifieafe antl the dHffiicile certificates Uave been acquired by fhe petitioner afiter aperiod ofmore fhan six years ofjoinmg the service. The petitioner has atso not taken a.ny aetipn u|i compliance ofthe notice dated 3 October,2009 a&d has ohly submitte^; her provisional caste certificafe and doinicile certiEcate beloriging to:fhe ! State ofMadhya Pradesh. Thus, the contention ofthe petitioner merits no acceptaace. Even otherwise,the petitioner is duty bound to keep all tUe relevant certiEcates uichiding. /the permaneril caste and • donlicile^ Tl'l! rtti ll'liit n9s !Bi:l: lli'!i :ss 6. 7. 'Thakur certificate with her at the tiine of submittmg the application form for employment as well as at the time ofher joinihg, in case,she is claiming benefit of Scheduled Tribe category and a resident of the State of Chliattisgarh. So far as complianee ofthe pnnciples ofnatural justice is concemed, it is a trite law fhaf ifthe facts are admitted it is not necessary to afford an opportunity ofhearing before passing the order. (See: P.D. Agrcwal v. State Bank oflndia and Ofhers ). In flie case oii hand, though the petitioner was noticed for supply of permanent caste Gertificate and domicile certificate, the petitioner failed to supply the same under whieh fhe petitioner was claiming the benefit of Scheduled Tribe category. In view of foregoing and for the reasons stated hereiilabove, there is no illegality br mfirmity infhe orderdated 31 Gtetober, 2009. TUe same is just,prOperandwarrairtsiiointerfereHceoffhisCourt. :. In flie .result, the writ petition beicg devoid uf merit is liable tQ he and^is: accordingly dismissed at the motiori .stage itsel£ •' yvw^ •;;"». Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge