§aPFvjF»9E |<?P;?»i"s; IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.t WRIT PETITION No. Sci'yV /2005. PETITIONERS /^ / // o'vy/ ^ / ' ^/^/ ^My ^'xl"-' /^ -^' <^' RESPONDENTS I- Salim Khan S/o. Shri Noor Khan, Aged about-34 years, R/o. Village- Bodsara, Block - Nawagarh, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 2-, Ku. Mery Basanti Tigga D/o. Piyush Tigga, Aged about-30 years, R/o. ' Mission Corapound-Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 3- Lokeshwar Singh S/o. T.R. Singh, Age-32 years, R/o. Chandaniyapara, Champa Road, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Charupa (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretaiy, Panchayat Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Director, Panchayat Evam Samaj Sewa, Mahanadi Khand, Mantralaya Parisar Raipur (C.G.) .3. The Collector, Janjgir, Dista-ict- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). / 4. Chief Executive Office, Jila Panchayat, Janjgir, Dista-ict- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). - 5. Chief Executive Office, Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.j. . 6. District Education Officer Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS WRITPETITION No. 3984 of2005 Salim Khan & Others. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITtON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. • Present: Shri C.P.Lahre, Advopate for the petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 and 6. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. ORDER rORAL) (Passed on 06th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law involved herein asto whether the services of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, after appointment can be cancelled on the ground that there was irreguiarity in the selection process. The said issue was considered and decided by this Court in Ku.Punam & Others v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others'. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the other side fairly submit that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision offhis Court in Ku. Punam & Others (supra). 3. This very question came up for consideration before this Court in Ku. Punam & Others (supra). While allowing the case of Ku. Punam & Other (supra), this Court observed as under: - •— "22. The cases on hand are not the cases of cancellation of the selection process, the selection process have not been found vitiated on account ofany reason inclvding mass copying or mass ' 2008 (2) CGLJ 366 BBH! % / / "• •<»-.„.?<?• irregularities . The present cases are where the appointment orders, after having given effect to, have been cancelled subsequently, on discovery of some facts that some of the candidates had submitted false and forged documents to obtain the appointments. 23. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present cases, the respondents/authorities have already prepared a second select list on the basis of the selections held earlier. On scrutiny, most of the candidates found place in the second list and their appoinfments are continuing, as such. some of-the candidates could not ftnd a place in the second list after scrutiny on account ofdoubtful documents submitted by them. It is, therefore, directed that the candidates who have not found place in the second list be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness, truthfulness of the documents submitted by them for obtaining appointment on the posts before their appointments made earlier are cancelled. 4. In view of the well settled prmciples of law, this petition stands disposed ofin terms ofKu. Punam (supra). No order asto costs. Amit