I—- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR /__ ^-1 ^. _ _ _ ^ Writ Petition NoT^ ' -7200^ PEriTIOWER y .^<^ ^s^^ •c^-'' .c^' ^'\.^">^" ^^ RE8PONDENT8 G^ ^ ^w^ ^^ ^ \.o /Smt. Piarmeshwari Namdeo, W/o Shri Radhelal Bhardwaj, Aged about 37 years, R/o^finage-Pihridvia Molkhflroda> District- Jaajgu: Champa (C.G.). Venu»- State ofChhattisgarhy Throu^i 8ecretary> Department of Panohayat and Rural Developxneiat, Maatralaya, D. K. S. Bhflwan, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). / 2/ Direotar, Panchayaty Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.). CoUector> District- Janjg^r Champa (C.G.). Janpad Panchayat, Matkharoda, Through its Chief Ebcecutive Qfl&cer, MfiBdiaroda, Diatdet - Jaiggu" Chainpa (C.G.). 5. Blocik Education Officer, Mdldiaroda> District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 6. Head Master, Nflharpara Oovt. Primary School, Pihrid, MaUdiaroda, Disrtrict- Jaajglr Champa (C.O.). /• 4. ~~T 4 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDA3WJS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC.OR OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THB MATTER. mpH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No. 3573 of2005 Smt. Parmeshwari Namdeo. ^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgmhotrL J. Present: Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1 to 3, 5 and 6. None for respondent No. 4, despite service ofnotice. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 06th day ofApril, 2011) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law involved herein asto whether the services of Shiksha Karmi Grade III., after appointment can be cancelled on the ground that there was irregularity in the selection process. The said issue was considered and decided by this Court in Ku. Punam & Others v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others1. Leamed counsel appearing for the other side fairly submit that the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision ofthis Court in Ku. Punam & Others (supra). This very question came up for consideration before this Court in Ku. Punam & Others (supra).While allowing the case of Ku. Punam & Other (supra), this Court obser^ed as under: "22. The cases on hand are not the cases of cancellation ofthe selection process, the selection process have not been found vitiated on account ofany reason * 2008 (2) CGLJ 366 including mass copying or mass irregularities . The present cases are where the appointment orders, after having given effect to, have been cancelled subs.equently, on discovery of some facts that some of the candidates had submitted false and forged documents to obtain the appointments. 23. Applying the well settled principles of la^v to the facts of the present cases, the respondents/authorities have already prepared a second select list on the basis of the selectibns held earlier. On scrutiny, most of the candidates found place in the second list and their appointments are continuing, as such. some of the candidates could not find a place in the second list after scrutiny on account ofdoubtful documents submitted by them. It is, therefore, directed that the candidates who have not found place in the second list be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness, truthfulness of the documents submitted by them for obtaining appointment on the posts before their appointments made earlier are cancelled. )f In view of the well settled principles of law, this petition stands disposed ofin terms ofKu, Punam (supra). No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit