(a) (fwgzf $mgm @mh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(s.) No. £575? /2oo9 PETITIONER :/Roshan Lal Hardel, S/o. Mahesh Ram Hardel, aged about 25 years, R/o. Bhawani Nagar, Square Stadium Road, District Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : /IT State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, 2. Chief Executive Officer, (/‘ Zila Panchayat Office, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3..” Ku. Laiita Pagare, R/o. 107 Tuisipur, / Bakhtawer Chal, Ward No. 16, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF MANDAMUS. AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS @ . w,P«£)MI-§Sé9 09 WW W200 \mm (W) WWW WWW WWW WW§§$W %afmm 53:. Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan #hrivastava, J. 1 6-08-201 0 Shri V. K. Sharma, counsei fort Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer Nane for respondents No.2 & 3, /’ Heard. Though earlier notices were iss respondent No.1lState draws attentic contained in the Chhattisgarh Panchay Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 (h of 2007’") and submits that the petitior statutory appeal against the order ir have been made in respect of other c petitioner. the petitioner submits that earlier Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had moved representation to various authorities, which have been placed on record as Annexure F’-5 & Annexure P—6 and the Chief Executive Officer. Zila Panohayat, Rajnandgaon vide his memo dated 04-08-2009 (Annexure P—B) informed tre Officer on Special Duty, Office of the Chief Minister; Raipur that the 1e petitioner. for the State/respondent No. 1. though served. Jed, learned counsel appearing for n of this Court to the provisions at Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and areinafter referred to as “the Rules ier has alternative remedy of filing 1pugned, by which, appointments ‘andidates ignoring the case of the appointments have been made according to the list approved. The petitioner again made representation to various authorities, copies of whict have been placed on record as Annexure P-9 and AnnexurelP—‘lO. It is also submitted that since this Court had earlier issued notices, the petition may be entertained without insisting on exhausting alternative ren edy of statutory appeal under the Rules of 2007. W atanzr 5am, Keane-fa «~FS/H‘7—‘2/2010 #1 ,oo,ooo. 03 . w.?.(s)m §§K9 . .......m 200 - WW ................................ mm (Wm Wmm ._ 2__ mmw ammm WWW1¥WW %3if%f=tan%¥1 Tumane It is not disputed that the petitior statutory appeal in view of the provis Rules of 2007. None of the groun interference by this Court under Artici '226 of the Constitution of india without insisting on availing atternative remedy of filing statutory appeal. Representations were being made byt e petitioner to various authorities, but no appeal has been preferred bef re the competent authority under the Rules This petition has not been a mitted so far. in view of foregoing, i am not i clined to entertain this petition in view of the availability of alternative re edy, y disposed off, granting liberty to Accordingly, this petition is fma the petitioner to approach the appeilate authority as provided under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2007‘ if the petitiorer prefers statutory appeal before the competent authority within a periad of thirty days from today, the appellate authority shall decide the same without going into the question of limitation, on its own merits, in accordance with law, ier has alternative remedy of fiting ons contained in Rule 13 of the raised in the petition warrant Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge