Mm gsx g§aig§@ Egragwg IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(gENo. g I¢§ (2009 ,v ,v Peelu Ram Nag, S/o Shri Lachhu Ram Nag, aged about — 29 years, Village— Chhindawada, Guriapara, Block 85 Tehsil — Darbha, District - Bastar (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. / Deputy Director, Panchayat 8L Social welfare, District — Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) / 2. Chief Executive Offlcer, Janpad Panchayat Darbha, District — Bastar (C.G.) / 3. Sukhdev Baghel, Village — Chhindawada, Janpad Panchayat — Darbha, District - Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2125 of2009 _ PETITIONER : Peelu Ram Nag VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AV.Skm'dhar, Pam} Lawyer for the State. Shri Pawan Kesharwam', Advocate for therespondent No. 2. A: Shn‘ Harsh Wardhan, Advocate for the respendent No. 3. ORDER ORAL , (Passed on ()5 day of January, 2011) ‘ ~ 1. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2069 (Annexure P/l) .passed by the respondent No. l appointing the respondent No. 3 as Panchayat Secretaly in village Panehayat Chhindawada, Janpad Panchayat Darbha, Distrit Bastar, when even a copy ofthe said order has not been endorsed to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary by the order dated 01.01.2008 (Annexure P/S) in continuation with communication dated 30.12.2006 (Annexure P/2) of the respondent No. 1 and communication dated 15.11.2007 (Arm/exure PIS) ofthe respondent No. 2 to the Sarpanch, u Gram Panchayat, Chindawada. 3. Shn' Shridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No, 1 has no submission except that the respondent No. 3 has been appointed as Panchayat Secretary. 4. Shri Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent \-_ No. 3 submits that though the orders passed in favour of the \\ .\ éf respondent No. 3 does not indicate anything with regard to the- A petitioner asto whether he continues or he is removed, but the same is expected to be passed aiter disposal ofthe petition. 5. Shn' Kesharwani, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner has altemative remedy, thus, this petition is _ i not‘maintainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused pleadings and documents appended thereto, it has not been established by any communication that the petitioner was appointedvagainst the vacancy created on account ofremoval ofthe respondent No. 3 earlier which was later on quashed and the impugied order was passed. Appointment of the petitioner appears to be in accordance with the provisions of law, Further, there is no order either for removal or for vacating the office against the petitioner, to enable the respondent No. 3 to occupy the same. 7. It is well settled principle of law that once a Panchayat Secretary has been appointed in accordance with law, he cannot be removed without following the provisions of law, as enshrined under Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. 8i Without goingxihto the 'r‘nerits ofthe case, at this stage, when there is no order passed against the petitioner for his removal, the petitioner continues to be on the post ofPanchayat Secretary. _ 9. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotrii Judge Amit