§5f HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS?UR WRIT PETITION (S) Na. 1377 0f2008 PEI‘X'riONER Nagendra DeewTan S/o Shri Yuvraj Deewan, aged about 22 years, Occupation g Service working on the post of Shikshakarmi, Class ~ III, R/ov Village§ Rewa, Post — Mongarapali, Tahsii & District ‘— Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RES?ONDENTS State of Chhaiiisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raiphr District Raipur (CVG.) 2. Director, Panchayat, Raipur, District v Raipur (co) Collector? Mahasamund, District — Mahasamulad (C.G.) Chief Executive OiTicer, Janpad Panchayat, Pithora, District — Mahasamund (C.G.) ' 5. District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Chief Executive Oifleer, District Panchayat Mahasamund, District — Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present: Shri Sunii Sahu, Advocate for the petitiozier. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State / respondent No. 1, 2, 3 and 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28m day of March, 2W8) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finaliy. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade HI on 25.06.2007 (Annexure PM) at Primary Schooi Kolda, Tahsil — Pithora, District Mahasamund. All of a sudden, without ait‘ording any opportunity of hearing, the appointment ofthe petitioner was cancelied on 04.08.2007 (Annexure 13/3) by the Chief ExeCutive Oificer, Janpad Panchayat, Pithora, on the basis ofsorne complaint made to the Collector, Mahasamund. (7% Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law as to Whether an empioyee is entitied to show oause notice even to examine the ge‘nuineness of the document, has already bjeen consideredby this Com in a batch of matter by judgment and order dated 14th March, 2008 in W.P.(S) No. 95/2008 (Ku. Punam & Others Vs. State ofChhattisgarh & Others) and other comected matters. This case is squarely covered on the question of ' law. Shri Gupta, leamed GOvemmem Advocate submits that so far as the question of law is concerned, itihas already been considered and decided by this Court in the above stated judgment. However, the State be permitted to verify the facts ofthe case. In View of the foregoing, this petition is allowed in the same terms i.e. petitioner be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness, tru‘thihlness ofthe documents submitted by him for obtaining appointment on the post and to put forward his case before his appointment made earlier is cancelled. The impugned order dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure P/l), 30.07.2007 (Annexure P/2) and 04.08.2007 (Annexure P/3) in respect of the petitioner shall not be given effect to until the direction mentioned hereinabove, is complied with. Sd/_ Satish K. Agnihotri' ; , i‘judgE, i i i l t if, % . i