Writ Fetitian (5) NG‘ 53’13 of 2607 Fetiticner Jaishingh, s/o. Shri Rameshwar Prasad, Aged about i9 years, Rio. Navapara, Pandariya, Tahsii: PahdaWa, Distt. Kabirdham (CG). Versus Resnendent 1) State Depanrment, 0f Chhaitisaarh D.K.s'. ahéwan, throuq‘n R‘aipurl'ce). Panchayat :2} The Conecior, Biiaspur (CG). 3) Janpad Panchayat, Lcrmi) through Chief Execuiive Officer, Ta‘nsii: Lormi, Distt. Bi§as9ur {CG}. 4) The Princ‘maL Primary Secondary Schaoi, Gainii Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, Tahsil : Lermi Distt. Bé!aspur (CG). (Writ Petition under Ariicie 226 of the Constitution of mdia) SE: Hcn’b!e Mw.‘ Satish K. Agnihetri, .3. Present: $hr§ Prateek Sharma, GaunseHorthe petitioner. $hri SK. Pmshra, Panel Lawverfarthe State. cam. eeeee {eased an 23‘” Janeayyizees} Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits ihat the petitioner was appointed after due seiection on the post of $hii<sha Karmi, Grade iii on 29-6-2907 {Annexure PM), thereafter, the petitioner joined Shiks‘na Karmi Grade Iii, in Upgraded iviiddie Schooi, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi. The Chief Executive omoer, Janpad Panohayat, Lormi, canceiieo’ the appointment order dated 29—5-2007 without assigning any reason. 2‘) Be that as it may. since the appointment of the petitioner as weii as canceiiation of the order is under the Chhattisgarh Pancnayat Shiks‘na Karmis (Recruitment & Conditions of Sen/ice) Ruies, 1997 (for short, “the Ruies 1997), the appeai is maintainabie under Rule 12 of the Ruies, 1997. Learned counsel further submits the impugned order is not passed under the Ruies 1997, thus, the question asto whether the impugned order herein is passed under the provisions of Iaw, cannot be considered by the Appeiiate Authority. in view of avaiiabimy of statuiorv appenate forum under the provisions of Rules, 1997, this petition cannot be entertained by this Couri in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction as nothing exoeptionai or extraordinary has been made out in this case. 3) The petition is accordingiy dismissed However, right is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to statutory appeila‘te forum provided under the provisions of the Rules 1997; raising an the grounds whatsoever avaiiabie to the petitioner, The Appeiiate Authority wiii consider the appeai, if med, without being infiuenced by any observation made hereinabove as the case has not been consieered on merit The time spent during the pendency of this petition shaii be taken into consideration whiie considering the deiay, if any, in fiiing the appeai. iM Raju Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge