•:;T J, ^ .-^.Vt>1-" lis r IN^-HE HIGILCOURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, (C.G.I W.P. No.43^ 12006 PETITIONER: '> ^^ fy ^ /- -^'-^•^..•/ ^ ry' /' ^ Bishal Ram Sinha Aged about 49 years S/0 Shri Ramdayal Sinha Upper Division Teacher Govt. Higher Secondary School Dondi Lohara District Rajnandgaon R/0 Village & Post Dondi Lohara (Tikara Para) District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Scheduled Caste 8s Scheduled Tribe Development Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Commissioner/Director Tribal Welfare Department Government of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^3. Additional Director Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe Backward Class and Minority Community Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) '%».<i'< 3'S%' ,rfS '"'*r^r,.^s"y •^^•j^S^^SS^^^^SS^^9'- V .-§. ^4. Collector 'District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ^5. Assistant Commissioner Department of Tribal Development Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) J31 n- 6. Shri Anil Kumar Pandre S/0 Notknown Upper Division Teacher Middle School, Khadgaon District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATEWRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABtE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- 'v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.425 OF 2006 Hiralal Kosare Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others And W.P.Nos.431, 432, 433, 434, 435,436,437,438 and 505 of 2006 (Writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, learned Dy. Adv. Oeneral with Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 22nd day ofApril, 2010) 1. W.P.Nos.425, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438 and 505 of 2006 involve common facts and a common question of law and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Challenge in these petitions is to the memo dated 30-12-2005 (Annexure - P/14 to W.P. No.425 of 2006) whereby the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Upper Division Teacher has been cancelled. 3. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that by the impugned memo dated 30-12-2005, after having decided to cancel the promotion, the petitioners were asked to file reply within a period of one week. Thus, the impugned memo was not a show cause notice, but post decisional notice, which is not permissible in law, as reply to the notice have become a mere formality to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners for putting forwards their cases. h 6. At this juncture, Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing with Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, submits that pursuant to the notice dated 30-12-2005, no final order has been passed whereby the promotion of the petitioners on the post of Upper Division Teacher has been cancelled. Thus, these petitions are premature, at this stage, notice does not raise any cause of action. Further, no order of cancellation of promotion has been passed. A fresh show cause notice may be issued to the petitioners, if so advised, before passing any prejudicial order. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case, however, the impugned memos dated 30-12-2005 deserve to be and are quashed. On the request of learned counsel for the State, liberty is reserved to the State/resppndents to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioners, if so advised, affording reasonable time to the petitioners to file response, if any, consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and on its own merits. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge