PetEtioner ® H3Gi—i C§URT m"; CE?§A?T§$§§KH: E§LIA$PIJR wwt §9aifnm gw No. 2?30 of 20% Rakesh Kuma‘f Rangari. agw 31 years, JG. 5hr? Ba‘QgQa! Rangari, occupation Shikshakami Gracie m at Govt Middie Schoai: $ondahur Jamaad Panchayat Koyaiébeda, District Utia! Basta! Kanker m. V§§§age 8adgoan Charbhama, Tahsi§ mngargean, Districi Rag‘nandgaen (.CG} Versus Respcadents ?resent: Shri Jitendra Nam Nande sounse§ for +he petimner SM ¥a3hwaraé 8ingh Thagwr, Gov: Advzacaie f0? thé Siate. {Writ Fewer: under Amc§e 226 o? the Constiiutien a?“ md'ia.) SB: Hon’b§e Mn Satish K. ixgm'notri .3. $§QAL QRBER mssed on 215‘ day of Agaris, 2:398 ) With consent cf ihe pariies. the ma§er is taken up for hearing ’fmaiiy. 2) The petitioner was appomted as Shiksha Karim Grade m an 8-8-2607 (Annexure W2} at Government Middie Sci’xpol; Gondahw Jaepad Panchayat Koyai2ibeda, D§stric2 Utter Basiaf Kanker. AH of a sudden: w§thcut afi‘crding an oppertumty sf heafing :9 the pe’titimer: the appointment of £he petiiioner was W/u. :f“f"'rr«., “if; Staie 6f Chhattisgarh, €hrough *che Seeietary, Panshayat and Riga! Beveiepmem Deparkmem, DKS. Bhawan, Mankaiaya. Raigur (CG). 2‘3 Tm Cciiector, D§strict Uttar Bastar Kaaker (CG). 3) The Chief Executive Gfficer, Janpad Pamhayat. Kcyaimeda: District Uttar Sastw Kanker (CG). 4) We Chief Execuiéve Gfficer, Ziia Pamchayat {may Bastar, Kahker, Dismct miarBasiarKanker {CG}. 5‘3 The B§ock Eiiucatkm Gfficer, Biock KcyaiEbeda, Di3tr§ct Utta? Ba3taz' Kanker (CG). cameiied by order dated 27—1 1-200? (Annexure PH) by :he Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Koya§iebeda 3) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits thai the question of law as to whether an empioyee is entitied fc show cause netice even i0 examine the geeuineness cf the documeni has a3reae'y been considereci by this (Sour: §n a batch of markers by judgment and orde! dateei 14‘“ Mamh 20% in Writ Petition (S) No. 95f2003 (Ku. Punam & others Vs. State of Chhett§sgarh & others) and oiher connected maners. This case is squareQy covered en the question of iaw. 4} Shn Yashwant Sing'n Thakur, Govi Advocate submits iha‘t sc far as the quesiion of iaw is concerned, it has aiready been considered and decided by this Court in ihe above stated gudgment. However, the State be permitted to ’ verify the facts of the case. 5) in viewyf the foregoing, the petition is aiioweoi in the same terms i.e., the petitioner shalt be afforded an oppottunity of hearing to estabiish genuineness, truthfuiness of the documents submitted by him for obtaining appointment on I the post and to put forward his case betote his appointment made eatéier is canceiied. The impugned order dated 27-11-2967 (Annexure Pit) in respect of ’ the petitionet shaii not be given effect to, untii the direction mentioned hereinabove, is complied with. ~ Sd/- ‘Satish K. Agnihetr'i Judge x.