6 43 M/V CD SINGLE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION PETIUONER : 1. RESPONDENTS : 1. /. Q6 (5) No.352? OF 2011 Rikhimm Kan? S/o Shri Ramkumar Kan‘r, aged abou‘f 36 year's, R/o. poswd as Cook in Pre Mafric SC Boys Hosfel, Pachpedi (Loharshi) Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) Dhurup Lal S/o. Shri Ganesh Prasad, Aged abouf 35 years, posted as Cook, in posf Mafr-ic, 5T Boys Hostel Gaur‘elo, Disfr. Bilospur (C.G.) Shoilendm Sharma, S/o. Dinbandhu Sharma, Aged about 24 years, posTed as Wa’rchman, in Govt Higher Sec; School, Lalpur', Distf. Bilaspur (6.6.) Vijay K'umar' Soni’, s/o. Radheshyam Soni, aged about 32 years, posTed as Cook in Pre—Mafric ST Boys Hosfel Pachpedi, Bilaspur (C.G.) Sunil Kumar Vaishnav, S/o. Shri Ramasfar Dos, Aged abou‘r 22 years, posted as Cook, in Pre Mafric SC Girls Hostel, Pa‘rhariya, Dis’rt Bilaspur (6.6.) Makhan Lal Sahu, 5/0. Shri Mi‘rhfhu lal Sahu, Agedabouf 23 years, posfed as Cook in Pre Matric Boys ST Hostel Lalpur, Dis’r’r. Bilaspur (C.G.) Rakesh Pandey S/o. Ramkrishna Pandey, aged about 30 years, posted as Cook in Post Matric Boys Hostel, Masturi, Dist. Bilaspur (6.6.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh, through The Principal Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). ® (/H’“ 2. Collecfor (Tribal Welfare) Bilaspur (C.5.) Asstt Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deparfmen‘r, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "w \JD N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M S.B.: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J. Writ Petition [Si No.3527i201 1 Rikhiram Kant 85 Ors. Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ Petition ulA 226 of the Constitution of India PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Present: ~ Shri Shashank Thakur, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4th July, 2011) Heard on admission. 1. This petition has been tiled by the petitioners challenging notice dated 6.4.201 1 (Annexure P—l), wherein, it has been stated that the appointments of the petitioners are not proper and nor in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Govt. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents is illegal, as even before receiving reply, the ‘Asst. Commissioner has clearly stated in the notice that the services of the petitioners would be terminated after one month, which would meaning that he has pre-judged the issue. §\ petitioners that the final decision has been taken in the matter and the issue has been pre—judged. . It is well settled that before taking any action for cancellation of appointment or termination on the ground that that the appointment were illegal or Without following the procedure prescribed by law/binding instructions, proper opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded and enquiry is to be held. In view of submission which has been made by learned counsel for the State, there is no reason for this Court to hold that respondent would not hold proper inquiry. However, it is observed that respondents shall duly consider the reply tiled by the petitioners and hold appropriate enquiry before coming to any conclusion adverse to the interest of the petitioners. . With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen