^- ./- !-'\ <^<:^ m THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH W.P.No. ^52/ OF 2001 PETSTIONERS ^ ^^.% --t'^'f*'^'^ ".-***'.',-A.^^.•'•"T \.^^^'"""' ^^c^-^ ^ 2. ^^.& 4. Naresh Prasad Behera, S/o Bodhram Behera, aged about 24 years, Shiksha Karmi Grade-111, Dhaorabhata, High School, District Raigarh Smt. Meena Patel, W/o Shri Lakhan Kumar Patel, aged about 30 years, Shiksha Karmi Grade-111, Dhaorabhata, High School, District Raigarh Deelip Kumar Bhoj, S/o Piniai Bhoj, Aged about 29 years, Shiksha Karmi Grade-111 Kunjemera High Schooi, Block Tamnar, District Raigarh Rampal Rathia, S/o Nanhiram Rathia Aged about 30 years, Shiksha Karmi Grade-111, Kunjemera High Schoot, B!ock Tamnar, District Raigarh RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh,throughthe Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Mantralaya, D.K. Building, Raipur 2. Collector, Raigarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Tamnar, District Raigarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L „. _ _.. ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR PETITIOIslERS RESPONDENTS WRET PETITION N0. 1521 OF 2001. Naresh Prasad Behera & Others -Versys State ofChhattisgarh & Qthers 0/Vrit Petitlon under Artlcie 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.D. Guru, Ad'vocate for ihe petitioners. Shri PX. Bhaduri, Panei Lawyerfor the State.. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate forthe respondent No.3. ORDER (DRAU (Passed on this 4th day of May, 2011) 1. Heard !earned counsel for the parties. 2. ChaElsnge in this petition is to the order dated 09/08/2001 (Annexure P/1, P/1A, P/1B & P/1C) passed by the Chief Executive , Officer, Janpad Panchayat Tarifinar/Dlstrict-Ralgarh whereby the appointment orders passed in respect of the petitioners have been canceijed on the ground that they were appointed during the ban period. 3. Shri^ Guru, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were duly selected and appointed ,on the post of Shiksha ·Kar.ml Grade-111. The ban was,not in force when the petltioners were appointed on 18/07/2001. The memo dated 14/01/2000 (Annexure 'R-3/1) issued by the, then, State of Madhya Pradesh provides for ban in appointments only for the period from 01/01/2000 to 31/12/2000 and, as such, the reasons assigned by the respondent authoritles are not just, proper and in accordance wlth the memo as aforestated. There is no other iniemo, vvhich prohiblted appolntment after 31/12/2000. 4. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, tearned Panei La^vyer appearing for the State as weil as Shri Shrivastava, iearned counse! appearing for the .^^.^•^^^.^^»^,J^.i'^^^..^Jw^.:.^^..^S^^^^^^M^^^^ Gowri respondent No.3, submit that since no other circular was issued, thus, it was presumed that the ban vvas not iifted by the State Government. 5. On perusai of the rnemo dated 14/01/2000, It •is crystal dear that prohibltion of appolntment was for a specific. perlod. it was not necessary fo issue any clrcuiar iiftlng the ban when there was no prohlbjtion froni the date until further order or till subsequent order is passed» Thus, the contentlon of the leaned counsel for the respondents faEEs. There is no other ground for canceilng the appointment of the petitioners. 8. For the reasons mentioned herelnabove, the impugned orders dated 09/08/2001 (Annexure P/1, P/1A, P/1B & P/1C) are liiegaj, unjust and contrary to the records. Accordingly, the same are quashed, 7. . As an upshot, the writ petltion Is alSowed.' No order costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge