sd^^w^^^ww^?&fi"w:'':[^t^^^^^^ ^\- :::'S^W^^i^ S: ^-u-frj^-,^^^i-ii»^?tf'/i/^~u-^^d<,.?r<^>w^\^^ .M1' [-~. PETITJONER ^^^ 0^<f-^f^^ '•D'. •At^t IN :THB(.BBS^':CX)£KT;.P^iJSHH&TT,3SSARH'M':Ba«^PW,:,.t/. ISrit Petit Aon No..J-3 2-L /•Z.QsQ ; Jamuna Prasad Gupta S/o PFemehandi Gup-ta, aged:' .atooufe"2©• .years,, S./Q^J^ yi.llage - Talkeshwarpur, .BJ.ock.—'•,, RamahandrapuB, Tah. RamaHtiJganj(|>,i Distt.. Surguja (G.O.) . - V E R S, U.S ^ : '• (.t) St.ate of GhhattAsgarh s>ec»ej<i Thrpugb : ftQ.jOQV- <f S.ec'iutea-^, -S e^D/ ^ jeuv- G.^-i'"1hi Rhll'-fti :g ,'Hif?.ion. -RaAptB". .;(e'ri').' ah.Uisha.. :ffiuaran1-nh Yojana," ©.K.Bbayan,, B.aApur('C.G. $,.-].. • .:i • . ^'/••:,. -.r,:; : • :.: . •.•.•,..1:'. (2) Distri.ct ParlyDjana.S^amanvay-afc.',.y^|| Rajeev Gandhi. Shiksh'a Mi.ssio»- ~ O.P. E.p), .amblkapur, 'Bistt. . ..;; Surguja (G.Q.). . ! l''?': (3)! Chief' Execut.J-ve ,0ff lcer^,.,3-aa@a@': .. Panchayat, RaHichandrapac,, .-fitstst,. •Surguja (C.G.). • , : : ,'. (l_ < A.} : Go liector ;•SurguJa.. Anbi]ta@ur {'eo^ XS.)^Smfc:.;;p]^lmatAvaingh^(SaEpanch)';::''l:;.' ^lllage1 ;Gram Pancbayafe-'.^lKeshwaE-^l pur.,'.'ITaK..KainaHH^:gaRj'?<'Sa^),^'^^ • '.Distt. Sur:guj.a ;(C.©.)..I'A^,'^ :WRIT',p2TJT3^N::HNmSR__^^3E&E;'2.2S/227'flF^e^ ;OI---lND3A.-^:;',..^'.>-.r^^. -..'..;..>;...^.,^. ..i':.i:-' ;.'&:^'.;,,:::/-;.l'^i.'^:.:,^ m SSSftWS^SS^SSXXfGS; 1. ; . SfS'r:83J-i.^tS^,aS":!EBSSESmiS -'t sss ":iiij StS'WiSSSS^ -&SS&SMSSM As .,nigiitiJflB^E^ ^''^^;:^he;ileaB^e^:®ai.UffM!<EMfi^ T' /» HIGH COURT OBCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDBSTTS WRIT PETmON No. 1921 of2002 : Jamuna Prasad Gupta. -VERSUS. . State ofGhhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE226/227 OFTHE CC»iSTrTUTIONOF ESTDIA - •- : • - :.. ...1.. SB: Hun'Ue SaulSatisll K. Aemhotri.J, Present: ShriJ.R.Venna,Advoeateferthepetitioner.: ; Smt. Smita Ghai, Puiel Lawyer forthe State/respondeuts 1&4. Shri Sourabh Dan^, Advocate &rthe resp<»ideatNo. 3. ' , ORDERWBM^ (Passedon lO^dayofS^ptMnber, 1. Thepetitionerseeksawrit/directiQntotheClBefExeCTitiveOffieer, Jaapad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, i.e the respondent No. 3 to comply with the recommendation made by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the District Projeet Goordinator, Rajiv Oandhi Shiksha Mission, Ambikapur, and further, the Saipanch i.e. the respondent No. 5 may be directed not to fatferfefe wifli the matter. 2. The indisputable facte, in nutshell, are that the name ofthe petitiowr was recommended by the Gram Panchay^, Talkeshwarpur, Block RachandrMMr, District Surguja, for appomtment on Ifae post ofOumji wde AK. ^ ' ' . resolution dated 22nd Au^ist, 2001 (Annexure P/3). On tiie basis of tte resQlution oftheGram Panchayat,lfiereq)ondentNo,2fcffwat!deddiefile to tiie respondent No. 3 to make appoitrtment of the petitioner, on 16* October,2001 (Amiexure P/5). , , 3. Shri Verma submits Ihat once Ifae resolution has been passed bythe Gram Panchayat and thereafter the case has been forwarded by fte respondent £^ Amit No. 2 to Ihe respondent No. 3, fhe respondent No. 3 has no option but to appoint the petitioner on the vacant post ofGuruji. Per contra, SmL Ghai, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents 1 and 4, and Shri Sourabh Dangi, leamed counsel appearing for tfae respondent No. 3 subnrit that 1fae petitioner was never appointed by tfae competent authority i.e. fhe respondent No. 3. The resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and thereafter forwarding the ease offlie petitioner by Ifae respondent No. 2 to Ihe respondent No. 3 does not eonfer any ri^rt on the petitioaer for appointment, as thesame is not final or conclusive. The same is inthe form ofrecommend^ion alone. Having heard leamed counsel for fhe parties, pemsed pleadings and documents appendedthereto, Ihe resolution ofthe Gram Pandiayat andthe recommendation by Ihe respondent No. 2 is not in Ihe form oforder and the reeoaimendation is for consideration by the respondart No. 3. Tte respondent No.3 is not bound to approve the recommendation asthe Chief Executive ofBcer, Jaapad Panchayat, has to apply its own nsrind looking intothe other facts ofthe case. In the present case, it a^ears that the resolution passed by fhe Gram Panchayat and tiie reeommendation made by the respondent No. 2 have not been accepted by the respondent No. 3 and as such, no ri^it aceroes in favour of Ihe petitioner on the basis of letter dated 16U> October, (AnnexureP/5) madeby the respondent No. 2. For &e reasons mentioned hereinabove, fhe petition being devoid ofment, isdismissed. '; '. . . ' . : —-—---%/- T--7/.-^^~n-.- SatisfaK.Agnihotri ..£-.- "^?--":r " ="ffKI'^S3;R=5ae5»U<i!^Si4r^3£7SSKASJ