C '^^(00,^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6'^?^2008 PETITIONER ^w^'. ^M-KS^ ^','7;.^~ RESPONDENTS 1 1^ ^^' (.b \ ^ Ku. Arpana Mandal aged about 24 years, D/o Manoranjan Mandal, W/o Dipankar, Biswas R/o P.V. 24 Tah. Pakhanjore, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Department, D.K. S. Bhawan Raipur The Collector, Kanker Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Koilibeda, distt. Uttar Bastar, Kanker Block Education Officer, Block Development, Koylibeda Distt. Uttar Bastar Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Distt. Uttar Bastar, Kanker WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /4. ^•^^ H1GH COUKT OF CHHATH80ARH A! IMLASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETmON <S> No. 6772 of2008 Kti. Arpana MaiKilal^ KESPONDENTS VERSU'8 The State @fChhattisgarh & Otfaers. WM1 PETniON UNDBR AR^HCLB 226 OF 1UE CQNSl'mjTIC^f OF INDIA SB:HonLMeSlulSati^]^_A®Bdho^J, Present: Shri Parag Kotecha., Advocate forthe petitionw. 8hri SSiashaak Thakur, Panel Lawyer for th©§tate/ respondent No. 1,2 and 4. Shri Paricaj Shrivastava, Advocate forlfae respondeat No. 3 and 5. (MfcDERrOKAL) (Passed on 27'" day ofJyae, 2011) 1. Challenge in tius petition is to Ae order dated 13.10.2008 (Aime^iUTO P/4) passed by the ChieC Execixtive Offic^ Jte^ad Patichayat Koylibeda, District ]Sfortto Baslar, Kardk^ wfoerem fhe candidature of the petitioner for ap{K)itrtmetrt 011 tihe post of SMkslia Karmi Grade IIL ontiie ^oimd Aat <^rtam documaite submitted by the petitioner were not g^iume. 2. Shri Kotecha, leamed counsel appeaaiag for the i»titi<m^ submtts that tfaou^i ^ttemative mrxiedy is avaflaMe. however, smce fhe case ofthe petitioner is covered by a dedsioa oftfrfs Court m Ku. Chitra Reldza Basara & Othws v. State of Chhcittisgarh & Others , ttie High Court woiild be tiie pioper fbmm. 3. Be ttiat as it may, it is well ssettled proposition oflawthat ifan etiective altemative statutory remedy ofappeal is provMi^ the M ' W.P.(^ No. 77 of 2008, & Other conneeted malters decidedon 04.03:2008 I 1 :"^:3y U61 6. High Court should not iirterfere iti nomidl oowse ualess sbrong and cogexrt reasons Jfar interferenoe m laiade out. Contention of leamed counsel for ttie petitiioner tfiat fhe agnstattf case is squarely <x>vered by the decisiojnL as afbrestated. is ausplaced. 'fhe above decision does aot cover the subsequent order passed by t3he Chief Executive Qffic^ on scratijQy. Uti4^ the provisions ofRule 13 ofthe Chhattisgarfi PanclayM Shitoste Kamri (Recruitnieirt and Conditions ofServices) Riilak 2007 (^&r shart 'thcRuie^ 2007% a provision of^peadhasbeenprovided againstttie order passedthe ChiefExecutive QffiG^. Thu^tibere is no reason to entertauifhis petitaon at thisstage. In view ofthe above, Ihis petiticm is <Ms^ssed reswving lib^rty to tfae petitioner to take r^course to appropriate ^teraati^e statutory fbrum widssr the provisions of tiie Rules, 2007, if so advised, which is equally efl^ective. No order s^ to coste. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anut