@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3441 of2003 Petitioner Respondents P€titioncrs Versus 1 . O{ And Ram Bilas Singh, S/o Jatur Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of village— Aourijour, Post O$Ce— Khutgaon, Tehsil— a“ Kunkuri, RS. Farsa Bahar, Distn'ct- Jashpur (C. G.). The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Panchayat, Mantralay, D. K. S. Building, Raipur (C.G.). The Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (0G,), The Collector, Jashpur (C.G.). The Chief Executive Omcer, Janpad Panchayat Farsabahar, Distn'ct— Jashpur. Zila Shiksha Kendra, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Jashpur (C.G.). Writ Petition No. 715 of2004 Ku. Gayatri, Shiksha w Gualantee Kendra Barhamuda Gram Panchayat Uparkachhar Mohan Sai, S ' sha Guarantee Kendra Jorkotola. Gram Panchayat Bhagora. Pankhrasius, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Indira Nagar Gram Panchayat Kandaibahar. Jamit Sai, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Indira Nagar Gram Panchayat Kolhenjharia. Niranjan Minj, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra Mundadeepa Grarr‘r- Pani§hayat Tumla. Munku Ram, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Anwala Nagar Gram Panchayat, _ Babusajbahar. Ku. Parmila Panna, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Negitoli Gram Panchayat, Matipahadchharra. * H) Smt. Nilo Kujur, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Negitoli Gram Panchayat, Farsabahar. Bn’jmohan Sai, Shiksha Guamtse Kendxa, Palepkhana Gram Panchayat, Duman‘ya. Bileshwar, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Mahkulpara Gram Panchayat, Ambakachhar. Dashrat Sai, Shiksha Guamntes Kendxa, Upartoli Glam Panchayat, Bhagora. Sadai Ram, Shiksha Guarantee Kcndra, Uraontoli Gram Panchayat, Sundru. Baleshwanam, Shiksha Guarantee Kendra, Pakn'deepa Gram Panchayat Tumla. 11. 12. Respondents 13. Vemus 1 . State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Panchayat Mantmlaya, D.K.S. Building, .Raipur (C.G.). I The Secretary Depaxtment of School Education, D. K. S. Building, Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, Jashpur (C.G.). The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Farsabahar, Distn'ct— Jashpur (C.G.). Zila Shiksha Kendra, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Missin, Jashpur (C.G.). \ Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kfhgihotri. Shn' Arun Shnkla, Advocate for the petitioners. Shn‘ Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel laxyyer for the Respondents No, 1 Miss Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the Respondents No. 4 and @ ORAL ORDER (13th Januaxy, 2006) The following oxder of the Coun was passed by Satish K. mihotri, J, og Since the controversy involved in Wn‘t Patition No. 3441 of 2003 (Ram Bilas Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8r. others) and Writ Petition No. 715 of 2004 ( Ku. Gayatn' 8L others Vs. State. of Chhatu'sgarh 8r, others) is one and the same, both the petitions am being disposed ofby this common order. The petitioner in W.P.No. 3441 of 2003 and 13 petitioners in_ W.P.No. 715 of 2004 were appointed initially, as Guruji under Education Guarantee Scheme (Annexure R/ 1). Their services were discontinued in Janualy-Februaiy, 2000. The petitioners were again considered and appointed on 13.3.2000 (Annexum P/7 in W.P.No. 3441/2003) in vaxious Gram Panchayats, details of which are as under:- ‘Name of Name of Name ofViuage Petitioner Education Panchayat Guarantee Center Ram Bilas Indiia Nagar Khutgaon Petitioner in WP. smgh Petitioner No. 1 in Ku. Gayatri i Barhamuda Upficachar ' § “LP.No.715/04 Petitioner N0. 2 in Mohan Sai Jorkotola Bhagora w.P. No. I 235/04” Kandai‘ Bah§r Petitioner No. 3 Pankhrasius Indiia Nagar w.P. No. 715/04 in 715/04 Jharia Petitioner 4 Jamit Sai Indira Nagar Kolhen _No. inw.P. No. 715/04 ” v inw.P. 715/04 No. 5 in WP. Niranjan Minj Munda Deepa Tumla Petitioner Babu Saj Bahar Petitioner No. 6 in.P. No. 715/04 Mati Pahad Charra Petitioner No. 7 inW.. No. 715/04 Farsha Bahar Petitioner No. 8 in w.P. No. 71/04 Dumaria Petitioner No. 9 in w.P. No. 715/04 Amba Kachar Petitioner No, 10 in ,P. No. 715/04 Bhagora Petitioner No. 1 l in W.P. No. 715/04 Sundroo Petitioner No. 12 in W3. No. 715/04 '‘umla Petitioner No. 13 in W.P. No. 715/04 The services of th petitioners in both the petitions were tminated ide ondr dated 2.3.2003 (Annexure P/2 filed in Wi;P.No. 3441/2003). Being aggrieved , the petitioneis filed cmon appel under section 91 of the M.P. / CLG. Panchayat Raj Adhiniy 1993 (for short ‘the Act, 1993’) beore the Collector, am, f Jashpur, which as registered as Appeal Cse No. 28/A- 89/2002-2003. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 5.7.2003 by the Collector, Jashpur, holding that the impugned order dated 22.3.2003 .‘passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janad Panchayat,‘ Farshabahar was legal and valid. p Being aggrieved ,the petitioners have 11e(1ese two petitions under Article 226/227 o the Constitution of India praying that te impugned order dated 5.7.2003 Annexure P/l in .P.No.715 004) and order dated 2.3.2003 (Annexure P/ 2 filed i'P.No. 344 1/203) be quashed. nW. 0 K Parmila Negitoli a mt. ‘Neelo egitoli Kur :Brij Mohan Sai Pale Pakhana Bileshwer Muku Ram Anwla Nagar n Mahkulpara Dashrath Sai Upartola Sadai Ram Urvtoli an Baleshwer R Pakrideepa am 5 m: Pam S N ju w e er v e 2 om a w a ff”§ f h ( W/ 2 2 W P I @ Learned counsel for the peh'tioner submits that the services of the 3 petitioners have been terminated pursuant to the internal enquiry held by a Committee headed by Block Education Officer, in a casual manner Without considering the facts of each and eveiy case individually. The enquiry report has been filed as AnneXuIe R72 in w.P.No. 3441/2003. Shii Pankaj Shrivastava, learned panel lawyer appearing for the ”State and Miss Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 Janpad Panchayat, Farshabahar and Respondent No.5 Zila Shiksha Kendra, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Jashpur submit that the appointment of Gurujis was under the Education Guarantee Scheme wherein it was clearly provided that for a group of 40 persons one teacher be appointed and for a group of 25 persons in Scheduled area one teacher be appointed. It is contended that the appointment of the teachers were contrary to provisions of Rules and reserivation policy. In some cases appointments were made Without 1there being any school or student. It is further urged that the Enqhiiy Ohicer has conducted a detailed enquiry before arriving to the conclusion that the entire selection process of the appointment of the petitioners be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended to the petition as well astp the return filed in both the petitions. On perusal of the Enquiry Report it is evident that the enquiry has been conducted in very casual and cursory manner. The enquiry indicates that women reservation has not been followedjlithout indicating what was the reservation l K. and, how it should berapplied. Thc anthvenquily has been ponducted at one place i.e. in the oElce of the Assistant Commissioner, Jashpur and\n0 opportmaity was given to any of the concerned petitioner or other concerned emcers. The enquiry conducted by the committee is contrary to all the principles of natural justice and does not comply with the requiiements of holding an enquiry. As such the impugned orders terminating the service of the petitioners is bad and deserves to be quashed. 8. The petitions axe allowed.‘ The impugned order dated 5.7.2003 ' (Annexure P/l in W‘P.No.715/2004) and order dated 22.3.2003 _ (Annexure P/2 filed in W.P.No. 3441/2003) are quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are at-li‘certy to take any appropriate steps as permissible under the law. No costs. Certified copy, as per Rules.