^®N:"%Km% l'»:? S^aS??'!^!SS?:S;i"'l;:%S3iS "&-y'\' fSi-KW •-?' PBTITIONER: & .*' \F^^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR, (C.G.I W.P. No;^3'^~/2006 Purushottani Lal Dewangan Aged about 43 years S/0 Shri Siraman Dewangan Upper Division Teacher Govt. Higher Secondaiy School Bharritola District Rajnandgaon R/0 Village 85 Post Bharritola Tehsil Manpur District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ..<> >ofa^yy ''^: ..•••" ">%^ ^^' ^'.^ \.fr^' VERSUS RESPONDENTS: /-' ^2. State of Chhattisgarh Th'rough the Secretary Scheduled Caste 8s Scheduled Tribe Development Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Cominissioner/Director Tribal Welfare Department Government of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Additional Director Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe Backward Class and Minority Community Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Collector District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) -5..::. ;:AsS fanf'Oonirnissi6nSr';'^?%IS:5S.:^ DepartmentlcyfTl"ibsL[I)evelopm6|iit Rajnandgaon (CHhattisgarh) ~T .1- ^'6. Shri Anil Kuhiar Pandre S/0 Not known Upper Division Teacher Middle School, Khadgaon District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WMTS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- © HIGH.COURT QF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR PETtTIONER RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.425 OF 2006 Hiratal 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) Singte Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, learned Dy. Adv. Generat with Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe 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. Chatlenge 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 leamed 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. 2 \ 4. At this juncture, Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Adv. Generat 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 cancetled. Thus, these petitions are premature, at this stage, notice does not raise any cause of acti&n. 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. 5. 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 fite response, if any, consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 6. Accordingly, the'writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .-'ii,-