INTHEHICjffieQURTOFCHHATnSGARHATBILASPURfC.G.I WRn'PETmONfSI N0. ^ OF2008 PETITIONER: ./••^ /*. ^y-'' ;.••'' ;vl.''< ...^g^ >•" .<• Jaikrishna Binjhawar, s/o Shri Dukhuram Binjhawar, aged about 38 years, occupation service, posted as Upper Division Teaeher, Middle SchoQl Madwa, Bloek Baloda, District Janjgn--Chainpa (C.G.), R/0 VUlage Tanduhhata, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS / RESPONDENT: 1. ^i/- .^^^1 ^l ^tS.B.^ati^'kjS j ^^ ?fl7&tt^ State of Chhattigarh, through Secretary Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C..G). District Education Officer, Janjir- Chanipa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Nawagarh, District Janjgir- ChampafC.G.) ^.. ; . .' : ; .. 4. Blbck Education Officer, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. ^ ^ : WRIT PETITION UN_DER_ARTICLE 226 OE THE CONSTITU'FION OFINDIA • . :'WJt •(i, HIGH COUFyT OF eHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRITPETITION(S) N0. 72 OF 2008 PET1TIONER Jaikrishha Binjhawar '•Versus..-:". : ;':' -: '"'• /- StateofChhattisgiarh&Others RESRONDENTS (Writ Petitjon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SingleBenGh:^Hon'bleStiriSatishK.Agnihotri,J.~ Present:- Shri I.S.Sahu^Advocateforthepetitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawygr for the State. -ORDER(6RALy (Passed OB this 4th da^of February, 2011) 1. 1-leardlearnedcoyhSelfqrthepaFti^. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks^uashment 6f ths ^ 14-12-2007 (Annexyre-P/5)passeaByth&DistriGfEduGati6n Offlcer, .Janjgjr, Distriet Jahjgir-Ghampa, by'which the promotifin order dated 3?1 -8-2007 passed in respect of the petitioner fer the post 6f Upper Division Teacher has been caricelled. 3. Learned cQunseI appearing for theipetitjoner Sutimits that the respondent authorities after considering the service reeorcls bf the petitioner and ISoking to the seniority as wellas the merits 6f the petitioner promoted him tathe post of Upper Divjsioh 'TeaCher by orderdated 31-8-2007. Howeyer.allofasuddenbythejmpugned orderdated 14-12-2007, thepromotionorcierhasbeenGaneelled withoytaffordinganopportunitypfHearingtpthepetitioner.whichis against the well-settled principlesof law^laid down by this Qourt in ^ A^wft^arGaufeff} v. SteteofA^A (h6wC,^ counsel prays that similar relief may be extereied to the petitioner. • - - • - : . , • / :! , ,,;:— :''' , :: ^; :':,. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the State does not controvelt the aforesaidsubrnissionthatbefQrepasSingtheimpugnedorderdated 1 2008 (3) CGLJ288 Gowri 14-12-2007 no opflortunity of heai-ing ^was affortled to, tHe petitjoner. '.:;::•••;, :: • ...••-• ;: :.':•;..- •,/1-' •:: '•'.1 / This Court while passing the order in Murlidhar Gautem (supra) considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukia V. Uniori of India & Oftere aswell as the deCision of this Court in Laxman P/asadA^ra k KnsArt^a/A^cff^mHy.Se/neteiraancl observed thafno puriitive ordercan be passed Withoufgffoixlmgah opportunity of Bearing to the person concerned, who is affected prejudiciallybytheimpugned6rder. In view Qf the above and applying the well-settlea prinGiples pf law to the facts of the present case, the impugnigcl order dated 14-12-2007 is quashed. The petitioner is^entitled to^^ consequential'benefits.". ;:: ' • . : •.':' :/:::::''::'''.::.''.""." ':::.''~ " ; ' 'i' 1' . In the result, ttie writ petition is ailowed. N6 ord&r asto costs. Sdl- . ^^ fcoW ^ .s^- ? AIR1994 SC 2480 WPNo.2800ofl995