i^-; JRSSKSS s .\09 ^K@BBliBI,ElHIGH GOIHtT 01F CHHAmSGARH ^BB9?W»'lt-;Bai«&SPURI;fc.G.t; BiBglMW.iS'ETITIONNo, 33?a /2005. Mt S^BMSs' . ^''[Ashish Kuinar Smgh S/o Sanat Kumar Singh, Aged aboyt- ,21 years, R/'p. WUI^e- Maham,: Tahsil- ' Navagarh, Oistrict- Janjgir-Champa -te.G.).< , ; ' VERSUS li- ;.'-' '.'••• '....'.•''.. . :• : .' /' 1. • State ofChhattisgarh, : ; ; g ^ 'ThrougK : The SeGrefary, Eanchayat Gramiri Vikas Vibhag,; D.K.S. Bhawah, Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhatti^arh). ; ^ 3. The Colleetor, Janjgu-, ; 1 Distri.et- janjgir-Champa; (C.er.). / 4; ChieftExeeutive Officer, ijila Panchayat, Janjgir,;y ; >,'• ';, ; DistriGf- Janjgir-Chamga(G.G.^ iBtfiK.BB.iSSi ^ISill^l^l^.Chief'ExecutiyeOffiGer^ Uanp^ I^chayat, Nawagai-h., Distnct-Jarygir-Chamga (C.G.);. w: ^yl -^^ M:^ll; sa UBSSS^BSIIi V 6. DistnGtEducafipn Offieer Jitn]igir, Disfricf-,Janjgir-CliaiaiSa(©.Gi,). iaiSWBBBE8H[iiiNUJiffi»ERSJ@^iI^226^22%,]©IL3^ t;i3]S^VNffini0BKOyn!»@IA. ^ - —F —f 1», ^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRITPETITION No. 3928 of2005 Ashish Kumar Singh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTTON OFINDIA SB: Hon'bleShri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: ShriC.P:Lahre,Advocateforfhepetitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the . State/respondent No. 1 to3 <& 6. Shri:Sandeep Dubey,Adyocate fbr the respondent No. 5. ORDER(ORAD | (Passed onS6t11 day ofApnl, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question 6f law inyolved herem asto whether the serviees of SUiksha Karmi Grade IH, after appointment can be cancelled on the grouadthat there was irregularity in tHe selection process.jThe said issue was considered and deeided by this Court in Ku. Punam &Othersv.StateofGhhattisgarh&Others1. 2. Leamed cbimsel appearing for the other side fairly submit that the mstant petition is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in Ku. Pimam& Others (supra). 3. This very question came up for consideration before this Court m Ku. Piuiam & Others (supra). While allowing the case of Ku. "Punam & Other (supra), this Court observed as under: "22. The eases onhandarenot the cases ofcancellalwn'of tKKselection process, the selecticw^process. fiave ^iot been. fouhd vifiateid^ow'aecountofany reason mc/Mfi?^ B^OMV reoRy2% or mass I2008(2)CGU366 'K'"'S w:.^^ '^:'.':,':^^1 '';SBI ^•at' i* Q^-) irregularities . The present cases are •where the appointment orders, after having given effect to, have beeh cancelled subsequently. on discovery of some facts thatsome of the candidates had submitted false and forged documents to obtain the appointments. . 23. Applying the -well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe present cases, the respondents/authorities have already prepareda Secondselect Ij/t on the basis of ihe selections held earlier. On scrutiny, most of the candidates found place in the second list and their appointments are continwng, as such. some of tRe candidates cquld notfinda place in the seeond list after scrutiny on account of doubtful documents submitted byfhem.Ifis, ffierefbre, dfrected that the ccindifiates'who have not/bimd place in the second list be afforded an opportwnity of hearing to establish genwneness, truthfulness of the documents submifted by them for obtaining appointment on the posts before their appointments mdde earlier arecancelled. " In view of the well settled princlples of law, this petition stattds disposed ofin terms ofKu. Punam (supra). No order astb costs. Sd/-""' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit a'ltl d!iil IIIB :i3II!!ill :ias I'll :illll 311 'aa