SffiS E S'ESSft 'SUi.S. Bt-Nli c BEFORE THE HON'Bl-E HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSfiARH ATBILASPURfC.G.y W.P. fSINO. t^J /2609 ^--^ PETITIONER ."^^" ..-""Ai'.-'.AS^ ^' •:'':y^^)^^ ,^^>^'/^^x" RESPONDENTS Danddhar Patel, S/o. Shri Tarak Ram Patel, aged about 33 years, R/o. Village-Danganiya, Post Nawagarh, Tahsil-Saraipali, District .Mahasamund (C.G.) VEBfiUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. TheSecretary, Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ColleCtor, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5. Janpad Panchayaf-Basna, Through: Chief EXecutive Officer, District Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNOER ARTICl-E 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICUJ.ARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OFTHE RESPONDENTS ,-/" As mentioned in the cause title. 3 PARTICIU.ARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDERS AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE flJ?y£3BRn,tfWTJ'fl&»kr".*rtU^»»ui^!^'^^%t&.;^- •^~^~~~ S^j@f"3^): Ms^^l^^ffi^K^^^^"^^ ,s(seq s^uagOiAjassLit Rsyjof^o^dg&'seiepiputo^p }no •S8g!ufltu6yuQ!iBj}siu!Uf|^|Bi3us9ay}Aq|BA6jddeuopajB|osp sBmss^pueo 1,8 ^4SJI i^lss^'uo!ie3!|dde ue s^ 6uo|ejsuo!l!}9dst|^'|||8p&)Q!^B>|E4s)|!t|S^osispcl68^oA3ue3eA '"if e|c|B|!eAe uo lustuiuiQddE pue uc>!)3s|es jo^ "s •ON tuspyodsai «qi Xq psnss! (g/d ^nxsuu^^^^ eqt^iuensjnd (eyl aje 'J3UQj}i}sd8t)(Acj pe^slbjd se 'sloe^^suq Stji •z •jOl08||OOSi.|l;Aqp8sSBd.i8fUQsq^6U!p|OL|c|np3}os!aiseM 'SO'ZO/tSl'a/eOl. 'QN SSBO leaddy yi^^cl ^nxsu^ p9}ep jspjo 8ytlsu!BBe^sjst<t04}!»Bu<^BJsuo!i!}ey9i|^^qpajj8^ lesdde 91)} AqSJaLjM l(B/(eL|ouBd jotOajia •s'! 'g •ON luspuodsai aq) Aq passed (|./d ainxsyuv) gooZ'Zl.'t'Z Psiep -ispjo s^ 'jsyijnj pue 'peiiaoyeo sem 'in ^fsej^^uj^^eys^jt^:^}^^ '^eyoueci pBduer 'j^!fl@^!}r)3ixg ^iyo '^^ 8qt/qpassBcl(i7/dainxsHUV)zoOZ'2C)'81.p8iepjapjoAqai9L|)a8l. i.1tiM Buoie J8uo!l!i9d SLD' ^o luauutuioddE ^41 AqajeL|M 'punLueseL|e|/\| 'j6}Qs||oo 841 's'! 'l7 •ON luspyodsaj gtft Ac^ psssed (z/d ainxsuyv) /ooyzi.'I.S^ep-iap'OQLii.otsil.lo^tsdsiLliyisBueiiBio •|. (O^ 'li.ldV^ep ^z^u.i} up^pSssBd) :.?:;:'::;::::'£'MS®@Mai®t^';.^^^^ ...•sie^::s^,jo^:jgAAS|||;^e^|^g^^yB|SB^^ut)^^ga^ •.-.•jauQitj^^(i@j^i^AR^iiei.jR^ie^^uys;^ •p'Ei^y!uBv^^ttsj^g;)a^8|q,uoHs,q3U§g;®|Bu^ (eipyi jO i.ioiinjflsi.ioo sl.D.iQ SZ^ 8|3!lJV-ispl-in uo!t!tSd IUAA) sjsMJO S 4Je6s!fte>.l[)£i^<:)®].Big SnsjSA |siecj,iByppuBa sj.NaaNQdsaa a3N©li|13d gOOZa06SS^^ jl8^NOI-LI.L3d.l:18W anci®v'iia:Ha"o©sij.i¥Hi;i£)a0i.yno3HQiH of appointment orders. TRe petitioner was one of the 38 persons who also joined We service on thte basis of appointmerit orcter dated 18.7.2007 (AririexyreP/4); 43 postsremainedvacantpnaccountof non-joining 6f the vremaining eandidates. Thoughi, ther? was no waitinglist/a riew listW43 persons for appointmenton^te^ ShikshaKarmiGrade III wasdedaredQn 12.10.2007. Pursuant to ttTe selectlistclated 12^10.2007, 10 personsjoinedand 33 persons againdidnotjoin,FurtlTeraflistof"l15personsft)rappointmenton thepbstofShikshaKarmiGrade III wasjssuedon 6.11 complaint, a Committee wasSconstituted by the Ghief Exeeutive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund to enquire 'into the appojritmehts of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, pursyanfcto three different lists issued bythe then Ghief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Basna. Ih enquiry, subsequent list o1:43 persons and I'lS persons dated 12.10;2007and.06:11.200^ Fespectively.werefQuriddefecrt^ and illegal. AGCordingly, subsequent selecf^lists^of 43 persons and 115personswerequashedonthebasisofFscommendatipnmadeby the Committee. On the basis of report submitted to the Collector undersectidn 85(1) oftKePanchyat RajAdhiniyam, 1993, the respondent N6. 4 cancelledlheappointmentpf 19 persons including thepetitioneralso,whowereappointedbyorderdated 18.7.2007 on the basis of first select list of 81 persQns, without assigning any reason. : . , :: ': • ; :' '.• , : : 1:'. Thereagainst, the petitioner alongwith others prefei-Fed an appeal before the Director, Panchayat in..appeaKease No. 1S3/B,121/07.08. The Director, PanchayatToundttiattheappointmentofthepetitioners alongwith others was not iri aeGo^aFice with law, ori the b^ report submitted by the Committee t6 ing'^hief ExeCutive Qffjcer; Jila? wassi viT^GS^S.^ ssss ','SgSSS-Wi'f Gowri Panchayat, IVIahasamund, without ^assigning any reason. The Director, in his order lias ndt discussed any reason forcaneelihg the appointment Qf 19 Shiksha Karmis out of 38 Shiksha Karmis who were appointed vide the select list dated 18.07.2007. The subsequent seleet lists dated 12.10.2007 and 06.11.2007 were cancelled in theirentirety. Thus.thisRetition. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly and tairly submit thatthe issue involved in this case has already been corisidered and decided by this Gburt in Bh/sAmaGleo /-/ofe 14 StateofChhattisgarti & Others, and pray that this petition may be dispos6d of in Same :terms. : : ' ' - : . .. ; .'' • Accordingly, the petitioh is allowed in terms of decision ofthis Court rendered in Sh/sftmacteo Hofa (supra). The orders dated 24.12.2Q08 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/2) in respect of the petitjRrier, are quSshed. Tlie matter is remitted back to the respondent N0. 4, j.e. tHe ColleGtoF to Gonsider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh, if s6 advisecl, after affording an OpRortunityofhearingtothep^titionerto put.forward hiscaseand thereafter, paSsapproprJateordeFinaccordancewithlaw. ThereshallbenoQrderastoeosts^ f„., ^Safista K. Agnittotri Judge 1WP(S)Nb.1558of2009(decic|edbn-25-3-20l6) vssss