Sing!e 3ench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No.37'82/2005 // .y' ”'3 \ PETITIoNEE".¢,..§-g,‘:gi$fi‘ Kumari Gita Rathore D/o $9 ‘5 Champa Road Janjgir, Tah. Janjgir, Shatruhan Lal, aged 20 years R/o €\‘\."" gym” District Janjgir-Champa [C.G.] VERSUS :- 1 / State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Deveiopment, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.]. 2;l/”Director, Panchayat Avam Samaj f Sewa, Mahanadi Khand, Mantralay Parisar, Raipur [C.G.]. 5;] The Collector, Janjgir-Champa [CG] 4] Chief Executive Officer Janpad K’”;Panchayat, Nawagarh,l District RESPONDENTS Janjglr-Champa [C.G.]. / /,‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 2'27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 3782 of 2005 Kumari Gita Rathore PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri S.K. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. v Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for the respondents 1_ to \ 3/State. Shri Sandeep Dubey counsei for respondent No.4 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O R D E R (04.10.2010) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 29.7.2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner has been prohibited from performing his duties as Shiksha KarmivGrade ill and further the execution of her appointment order dated 21.6.2005 (Annexure P-2) has aiso been prohibited. 2. Case of the petitioner is that on 21.6.2005 vide Annexure P-2 she was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade iii and pursuant to this appointment she joined her duties on 23.6.2005 (Annexure.P—3). However the order impugned (Annexure P—5) has been’issued by the Collector under Section 85 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj. Adhiniyam, 1993 prohibiting the execution of seiection and appointment of the petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade lil. The order impugned has been passed mainly on the ground that after enquiry conducted by three government officials it has been found by‘the Collector that there were certain irregularities in the appointment of Shiksha Karmis including the submission of sport certificate, experience certificate and the scout certificate. The order impugned has been passed in respect of 25 candidates including the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the petitioner, by the same order appointment of Ku. Anjutata Rathore was also prohibited. However, when she tiled Writ Petition No. 3848/2005 this Court vide order dated 15.4.2009 set aside the said order granting liberty to the respondents to take action in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the said petitioner and by following the principie of naturai justice. He submits that the present petition can aiso be disposed of in the Iight of the order passed in the said case i.e W.P. 3848/2005. 4. Counsel for the respondents admit that names of the petitioner and Ku. Anjulata Rathore find place in the same order dated 29.7.2005 and the petition can be disposed of in terms of the said order. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 15.4.2009 passed in W.P. 3848/2005 and also in the light of the decision of this Court in the matter of Ku. Punam and others v. State of C.G. and others reported in 2008 (2) CGLJ' 366. At this stage it has been pointed out by the parties that in the case of the petitioner ultimately the certiticate submitted by her has been found to be genuine and to this effect the report has already been sent to the Collector by the Director, Panchayat. 6. Be that as it may, in the event of any action taken against the petitioner, she shall be given an opportunity of, hearing in accordance with Iaw. Sd/— Pritinker Biwake rt Judge ,9?