J- c^\s^i^— SVi! IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (S) NO.%MW OF 201 1 PETITIONER ^%.^ ..^^o.l^"' ^^y. ^ RESPONDENTS : 1. >k Singh Neti S/o Shri MotilalNeti Aged about 30 years, R/o Gram - Mohli, Post - Kongsara, Tahsil - Kota, Distt Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Tribal and Scheduled Caste Developnient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /y:^~<^ /^/ 2. Commissioner, Department of Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development, University Campus, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Asstt. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bilaspur (C.G.) /' 4. Collector, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER AR31CLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA '\ '^ I 1 %. ^ ' M/y' "•%.. '!^<^' ^•'. k<^ ^ •. HIGH COURT QFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B.: Hon?ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (St No.3497/2011 Lok Singh Neti Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ Petition U/A226 of the Constitution oflndia Present:- Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance copy. ORAL ORDBR (Passed on 4th July, 2011) Heard on adraission. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-1), wherein, it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner is not proper and nor in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Govt. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action ofthe respondents is illegal, as even before receiving reply, the Asst. Commissioner has clearly stated in the notice that the services of the petitioner would be terminated after one month, which would raeaning that he has pre-judged the issue. ^"^ ^" .^:^%.'% ^ ^%/;^t^ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though large number of such appointment, approximately 220 in nuraber, were raade in the district, however, only the petitioner and other 38 employees have been picked-up for hostile discrimination and without taking any action in other cases, the notices have been issued to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submit that whatever has been stated in notice dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P- 1) is only a tentative opinion of the authority and the fact that the petitioner has been given a notice shows that no final decision in the matter has been taken and the same would be only after the receipt of reply. He further subraits that various facts have been stated in the notice in order to enable the petitioner to submit an effective reply. 5. Notice dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) shows that the Asst. Commissioner has issued notice to the petitioner to submit his reply. On the basis of statement, which has been made by learned counsel for the State as also going though the notice, it is clear that whatever has been recorded, is only a tentative opinion and cannot be a final decision in the matter. The very fact that the petitioner has been given a notice shows that an enquiry is contemplated in the matter. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for fhe i..M^r'%:\ ]if]',,r--i4% '^ Praveen petitioner that the final decision has been taken in the matter and the issue has been pre-judged. 6. 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 filed by the petitioner and hold appropriate enquiry before coming to any conclusion adverse to the interest of the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge