PETITIONER (g Brijesh Kumar Gupta Aged about 21 years, é/e Deo Kumar Gupta, Shiksha Karmi, Grade 1H, Govsmment Primaxy School Chutiyadamar, R10 village Post Tatapani Dishict Surguja Chhattisgarh. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through‘ The Secretary, Department of Panchayat 6r. Rural Davelopmsnt, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C. G.) WRIT PETITIO RESPONDENTS The Collsctor, Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhat‘risgarh. The Chief ExmutiV€ Offxcer, Zila Panchayat Surguja (Ambikapur) ChhattiSgarh. The Chief Ex€cutiV6 Oiflcer, Janpad Paxxchayat Balrampur, District Surguja {Ambikapur} Chhattisgarh. INDIA N UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SB: Hon’bie Shri eatash K. ggihotxi, J“ Shri Amxito Das, Advocate for the pefitioner. Advocate for the responéent No. 4. Shii Pankaj Shrivastava, \ Heard learned couneel appearing for the parties. 11c1ent No. 4/ Chief Executive 1. Leanned counsel appealing for the reepo ’that the iseue invo1ved in thie case asto who is; Shiksha Kmmi, hae been afforded am 1mi11ation from her post, came into before thiS Couf‘t in the matter of Ku. Pun ‘ Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate or the State] responéent No. 1 and 2. ORDER §ORALI am and HEGH COURT OF CHHA’I’I‘ESGARH AT BELASPUR WRIT PETITION QS} No. 1622 of 2009 og pa (Passeji on 80?“ day of July, 2009) Omcer, fairly submit Whether the petitioner, oeyormnity of hearing before te consideration (90 others v. Staie 0fChhaI’tisgarh Othersk Lgalned counsel further $11bmits that since no proper opportunity was aiforded to the 9etitioner before termmation! the authon'ties shall take appropriate. steps in terms of the judgment and order passee i1: Ku. Pumm {supra}, before passing any omer. The concerned authorities Wm try to complete the whole exercise within a period of three weeks. The Chief Executive Oiiieer hae paesed fhe impugned. order of removal. 2. In View of foregoing, according to learned counsel apoearing for the petitiooers, nothing eulvives in this petition for adjudication. go Having regard to the facts eitua’tion of the ease aild the judgment passed in the matter of Ku. Pumm (supra), the impugned removal order dated 28.022609 (Annexure P] 1)Vis quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondentsf authorities to take appropriate steps ih accordance with law. 4. Consequently, the writ petition is disPoSgd of//?# t/ff r‘ Sdl. A Satish K. Agmhom‘ Judge 1 2908 (2; CGLJ 366 ’