,,"E';:"':;"";. /^3"^ f^o? '( ^t^,.'"^.'' ^~i R ii|! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITiON N0.4144 OF 2005 1. Ku. Late Patel, D/o Shri Umashankar Patel, aged about 23 years, presently posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade - III, at Govt. Nps. School, Madhurkot (Dhurkot), Dlstrict Janjgir-Champa (CG). R/o vill & post Kotmi, District Jangir- Champa*(CG). 2. Ku. Anupama Patel, D/o Shri Tularam Patei, aged about 23 years, presently posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade - III, at Govt. Ms. School, Jawali, Chandrapur, Distrtct Janjglr-Champa (CG). 3. Smt Shashikala Patel, W/o Shri Roopnarayan Patel, aged about 25 years, presently posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade - III, at Govt. Ps. School, Sapose, District Janjglr-Champa (CG). R/o vill & Post Sapose, District Janjgir- Champa (CG). 4. Ku. Kalyani Patel, D/o Shri Madhav Patel, aged about 24 years, presently posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade - III, at Govt. Ms. School, Latesara, District Janjgir-Champa Wo vill & Post Latesara, Chandrapur, Distriet Janjgir-Champa (CG). 5. Ku. Sharda Patel, D/o Shri Devkumar Patel, aged about 26 years, presently posted as Shiksha Karmi Grade - III, at Govt. Ps. Schoot, Upani, District Janjgir- Champa (CG). R/o vill & Post Bhedikona, Churaghanta, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mantralaya, D.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (CG). 3. Janpad Panchayat, Dabhara, through its Chtef Executive Officer, Dabhara, District Janjglr-Champa (CG). Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms Deepali Pandey, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri N. Naha Roy, counsel for the respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 15m day ofApril, 2009) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law involved herein asto whettier the servicesof Shiksha Karmi Grade - III after appointment can be cancelled on the ground that there was irregularity in the setection process. 2) This very question canto up for consideration before this Court in Ku. Punam & Others vs. State of C.G. & Others1. While allowing the case of Ku. Punam (supra), this Court observed as under : "22. The cases on hand are not the cases of cancellation of the selection process, the selection processes have not been found vitiated on account of any reason includlng mass copying or mass irregularities. The present cases are where the appointment orders, after having given effect to, have been cancelled subsequently, on discovery of some facts Uiat some of the candidates had submitted false and forged documents t6 obtain the appointments. 23. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present cases, the respondents/authorities have already prepared a second select iist on the basis of the selections hetd earlier. On scrutiny, most of the candidates found place in the second list and their appoinhnents are continuing, as such. Some of the candldates could not find a place in the seeond list after scrutiny on account of doubtful documents submitted by them. It Is, therefore, directed that the candidates who have not found place in the second select list be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness, truthfulness of the documents submitted by them for obteining appointment on the posts before their appointments made eariler are canceiied." -3) Ih view of the well settled principles of law, this petition stands disposed of in terms of Ku. Punam (supra). r? Thakur