(^^\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.°..y.L^'..OF 2009 PETITIONER San Kumar Sidar, S/o. Shri Bhudhe Ram Sidar, aged about 33 years, Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) Community Health Center Lailunga Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^l ^^. ^^^^ ^^\'>\y ....••":,^<^.-i ^":y >v ^•v>' tf.u ^' i-?"^, % Y A. 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 Medical Officer Comraunity Health Center Lailunga Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) THE .;.'^, •t. WMT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF COUNSTITUTIONOFJtNDL^ Thp nptitinnpTs flhnvp-nflmprl mnst rpRnpntfullv submits as under:- ^K II^Bi Si ~&. mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON fS) No. 6815 PETmONER RE8PONDENTS San Kumar Sidar. VER8US State ofChhattisgarii & Others. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri SaUsh K. AanUiotAJ. Fesent: ShriR.S.Patel, Advocatefbrthepetitioner. < Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORDER(ORAK) (Passed on 20nl day of November, 2Q09) z With fhe consent ofleamed counsel appearing forthe parties, 1fae petition is heard fmallv. 1. By this petition, the petitioner, impupis the legality aiKl validity of the order dated 31 October, 2009 (Annexure - P/l)w}ierebythe petitiona' has been removed from the post of Multipurpose HeaMi WoricCT (Male) on the groundthathe has failedto submitthe easte certificate in ^ite of afifordmg sufBcient and reasonable opportunity. Leamed eounsel appearing fiw the petitianersubHutsfliat the petitiqneEy wfao belongs to Gond caste imder the Scheduled Tribe category, was appointed on the post of Multipurpose Health Woiker (Male) t>y arder dated 22 August, 2003 (Annexure P/6) and Ihereafter^ l»jpuiipdmJfie seryice on 25 August, 2003 (Amiexure P/7) A Cpnuttimity 1|^^ Centre, Karwarjor, Laihmga. R isfurthCTCOHtended&stAttieitnaeof^ joining, the petitioner submitted a provisional caste certificate, whieh was accepted by the respondent authorities. However, witfaoyt afFording -€>t •AjoSsiBo squj, psinpsqosjo ^gsusq guiiro^p si sq 'SSBO m 'suiuioi'siqjo siup sq^ ^e s^ {pM sv }nsuiAO{dui3 joj uuoj uoi^oi^ddB sip Suiniixiqns jo 8uiiil eip ye (inq q^iM siBogipso SISBS tugueuusd sqi. Smpniom ss^ogipso tHBASpj sqi ^ dss-5( 01 punoq Mnp si jsuoitizsd sip 'ssi&usipo usAg •93UX}d309v ou siusui jsuoiitpd sq^jo uoi'iusyjoo sip 'snqj, -^uuojojd jsdojd ai IOH os(e SBM SUIBS si^ pue psjidxs Ap^s^B p^q qsiqM jo Aiipi(BA sqi -StBogipao a^svo puoisiAOjd sit{ psniroqns A[UO scq puB gQOZ '.oqoioo i>i£ PSW sopou sipjo s3iiBi(diuoo m vtoysv &VE us'5[ei ptt osp sreq jsuopi^sd sqj, 'soiA-iassq^ guimofjo SJBSA xis ueifl. ajorojo pousd v isyK jauopiisd sq). Aq psjinboB ussq SBI{ siEogi}j8o S'(SBO 'iusuBuusd sqj. •suopussqtonseq auies sq}. }nq 'j:(3S}i Sunnoi'jo siup sip •js jo uoiy30ipdi3 Sinnnuqns jo smi}. sip. tB sfsoyyjao SISBO •pjsuBUuad sq^ psnnuqns 3AEq o^ ti)Sno jsuoi^psd aig. 'psiusouoo si Aiuoi^n^ •i.uspduioo sip mojj (o/d sjnxsucv) 6QQZ 'JsqiosAON $ uo s'fBogiyso QTSVO lusireuusd gq^. psAisgsj seq jsuo^ipd sqi teq^ jsuoi^sd sq^jo uoi'iusiuoo sqi SB MJ og •souoys ps'j.Buiuusi sq &eva. SSOIAJSS Jisqi 'psSjoj 8JB syisumoop sqzjo Aire vev^ punoj si 51 -SSBO ui •voye9}\ddv sqi ipii^guop psnnuqns SJSM qoiqM 'psgusA syismnoop iisvg. pg 0} psjmbsj SJSA\ s8}epipUB3 sqi -^qt siBsddB 11 '(9/j sjnxsiHiy) gQOZ 'lsnStiV pnZZ p^TO -ispJO pisuijinoddB aip jo 9 -of<[ uopipuos jo psiusd KIOJJ •oisjsqipsplisdde siusuinoop si^pUB sSuipBqd si^ pasmsd 'ssvftvd sip joj guuesddB psunoo paiuesi pjcsq SAEq i •uoi^ipd siq^ 'snqj. •reuireui AjBfliqffi pire yssyi ire ui ps-iBBiuus} asaq seq jauoi^psd sqijo ssoiAjas 3>p °(];/a sjinxsuuv) 6001 '-isqo^oo 1sI£ P81BP Jsp.io spiA 'smjBsq jo Aiunvoddo jadojd z 6. So far as compliance ofthe principles ofiiaturaljustice is concemed, it is a trite law that if fhe facts are admitted it is not necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing before passing the order. In the case on hand, though the petitioner was noticed for supply of permanent caste certificate, the petitioner failed to supply the same under which the petitioner was claiming the benefit of Scheduled Tribe category. (See: P.Z3. Agrawal v. State Bank oflndia and Other/). 7. In view of foregoine and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 31 October, 2009. The same is just, proper and warrants no interference ofthis Court. 8. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is aecordingly dismissed atthe motion stage itself. eff¥:/ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^