\ Z EEGE CGURT OF CE EATI‘iSGAw AT EEEQASM‘JR WRIT PETH‘IGN {SB N0. 4565 0f2OG8 PETE’f‘i()NR§g : Mahipai Das Maham S/o Law Shri Shankar Wis Ma%1anty aged aboui W years? R/o ViHage i’ussozir, v 'Ta’hsii ijussoure, Distt Raigarh (CG) VERSUS RESPGNDENTS :1. Staie of Chfha‘i‘iisgarh Through: Smremry Department of Panchaya‘i 8c Social Weifara Mantraiaya, DKS Biiawan) Raipur {C(Gj The ETEirector, Fanchweli. D“K.$.B}1awan¢ Raipur (CG) 3K Thg Chief Executive Officer” Disirid ‘ihnc‘nayat janjgiy-Champa, District — Janjgir Champa (0.8;) 4. DiSiricf Fanchayat Eanjgir-Champa. ihmugh E’resident, Dish‘ict Panehaya’i, Janjgir-Champa {Cm m WRIT PE’l‘i’I‘EON UN BER AKI‘ICLE 226 OF WM: CONS'l‘i’I‘ULI‘ION OF INDIA $3: Hon’hie S§ar§ Satish K. Agmihatri. J. Pwsent: Shr£ Amii Sharmm Advocate for the neiitiener, ME. Sm‘ma Jain. Pam‘i Lawygr far ike Siaieiegpmdaiiis. 0mg, mam}: {iJgssgd mfi§%ay 0f August, meg) 1. Learmd cmmse} appearing fer the peiitioner suhmiw thai the petitioner, whn has hsen wiecied as Shiksha Kaumi Grade H far the Dis’trict 'Panchayat Jaxiigir-Champa, is aggrieveci by non-Ewe of appointment/posting ordar, as his name appeared 211‘ seiiai No. 5 in the final selection list and has alSo appeared m the cOunsailing 116M 0n aé 8.21367“ 2. Be iimt as it may, sime there is a Stamtery garovisien availabie- i0 the \ eeiitiener t0 prefer an appeai. there is no reemn m enter‘aaizi this getitien \ Q. Chewy Wham ihe gmtitiorler has not exhausted aii the $tatut0ry aypeliate mmeéy ava§1able ‘m him. Vikis case is moi (me of the case wherein depaxture from nomiai ruie O‘f‘msmiing {o stamtoty forum he aiiowad. Nermaily the High Cami shoaid not intsrl‘bre if {imam is 37: adequaie effwaciom aitemaiiva remetiy where hierarchy of appeak is provided ’ny the steamer party must Exhauh‘f. ‘ths: stamtery rsmedy hefom yrssariting i0 writ jurésciictiml, ax’cept when a vezy streng case is maée wt for making a departure. (See Stare Qf'fj‘ZP. am} oté’qers v. GabiarafAmbuja Cgmem a .g’ aiqgthgri, HRState Spmm‘ng Ce. Ltd. u RS pandey and refifr/g ami war. {LR Eirk S5ko'32 & £I¢fem§9dia$e Eémaiim, Ag; Jaabad & maker v. HKLa?) 4. i2: View 0fthe fbregomg, this petitian is dismissed as not mamtainable. Hewever. ii’beriy is reserved to ihe peti‘iionar to take recanrse to altemaiive Siammry ferum, that may be availabie i0 him if so adxdsed. NC: order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotiri : Judge (0J 34 ‘Sd/‘i .l‘JYm 1 {2065) e scc 439 2(2v3a5) 8 sec 264 3 (2007} 2 scc 216