. mam mmm WW§®W $a’fawm / . (Pe'ri'rion U/A Pe'l-H-ionef- ‘ Respondents Presenf: Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for ‘lh Mrs. Smi‘l'a Ghai, Panel Lawyer (Simle Bench; Hon le Mr. Justice Dhirendro Mishra W.P (s) No.5305/2008 226 of Consfi'rufion of India) S 1'. Dikeshwari Suhu, W/o 5hri Khemr-uj u, aged abouf 31 year's, R/o Village Bendkura, Pos‘r Murouda, Tahsil Gariyabandh, Disfricf Raipur (C6). Vs. 1. S‘fm'e of Chha'rrisgarhh, Through fhe Secretary, Depar'rmen‘r of Panchayof & Rural Development D.I<.5. Bhawm, > Raipur (C6). The Collec'l'or, Roipur, Dislricf Ralpur (C6). . The Chief Execu‘l’ive Officer, Janapad Panchoyo'r Gar-iyobond, Dislr-icf Roipur. The Block Education Officer, Goriyabondh, Districl’ Raipur- (CG). , ' The Janapad Panchoyo‘t, Gariyobondh, fhrough ifs Presiden‘l Janapad PanchoyofGariyabondh, Dis'l'ricf Raipur The Headmaster, Primary School Bendkura, Block Gariyabandh, Dis‘l'ricl Raipur (C.6.) pefitioner. ¢ \\ for respondents. /' / . 31w W 3mm, WW —FS/i97v3/2008 A4o,ooo. mm W1 200 WWW (W) the appoim'men‘r of The petitior vide appoint-mam order da‘red 19 ' er 10 the post of Shiksha Knrmi Grade-III 7.2008 of Annexure P-4 has been canceiled. l peTiTioner submiTs ThaT The peTiTioner Learned counsel for 1 appeared in The Shiksha Karmi ecTion Examination conducTed by The 6.6. Professional Examination Board offer due verification. However, The same has been cancelled on The gro nd ThoT The peTiTioner has noT passed The D.Ed. examinaTion. The peTiTion r never suppressed The above facT That she had noT passed The D.Ed. e aminaTion aT The Time of submiTTing her applicaTion nor passing of D.Ed. s an essenTial eligibiliTy criTeria for The post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. he mistake, if any, commiTTed is by The recruiTmenT agency and The peTi ioner cannoT be penalized for The same. On The oTher hand, lea d Panel Lawyer for The STaTe submi'ts ThaT Rule 13 of The Panchaya-t Kar i (RecruiTmenT 6i Service CondiTions) Rules, 2007 clearly provides for an peal under The provisions of CG. PanchayaT - Raj Adhiniyam and The peTiTio r wiThouT availing The sTaTuTory alrernaTive approached This CourT by filing The wriT u“\ r 1 ll, 7 ammm mat Hfga m mwewm 3?mm ‘1, 22.9.2008 Heard. By This peTiTion under Article 226 of The ConsTiTuTion of India The peTi‘l'ioner has impugned The ord er of Annemre P-l daTed 25.8.200S passed by The respondenT No.3-C.E.O. Janapad PanchayaT, Gariyabandh, whereby V/ mwm WWW pe‘ti‘tion and for This reason, availabilify of al'rema'rive sfmm Having heard learned c nsel for the par-fies, having regard 1'0 'fhe sfa'mi'ory alternative remedy ailuble 1'o 1'he peTiTioner, The insfam' pefifion is noT mainTainabIe and The same is liabie To fhe wrif pe'ri‘Hon is not mainfainable for- or'y remedy. at The instance of The peTiTion be dismissed. Accordingly, The peTiTi To The peTiTioner To file appe PanchayaT Raj Adhiniyam. is dismissed as noT mainTainable wiTh iiberTy before The appeiiaTe forum under The 6.6. / Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra i 1 i Judge i