c^^^2-— IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 3W5 OF 2011 PETITIONBR RESPONDENTS ^ f^v ^ ^y/ -^^ ./\ /^' r/ ^w. •!W ('^^ J^" '/.; // f^ Dinesh Ram Singh S/o Late Ganesh Ram Singh Aged about 28 years, R/o Gram -Semra, Post - Gorela, Tahsil - Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS €• 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, Department ofTribal and Scheduled Caste Development, University Campus, Raipur (C.G.) J; 3. Asstt. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^" 4. Collector, Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA M^W^M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B.: Hon>ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. PETITIONER Writ Petition (Sl No.3495/2011 Dinesh Ram Singh Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ Petition y/A 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia Present:- Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (Passed oa 4th July, 2011) Heard on adraission. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-1), wherein, it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner is not proper and nor in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Govt. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is illegal, as even before receiving reply, the Asst. Commissioner has clearly stated in the notice that the services of the petitioner would be terminated after one month, which would meaning that he has pre-judged the issue. rjl 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though large number of such appointment, approximately 220 in number, were made in the district, however, only the petitioner and .other 38 employees have been picked-up for hostile discrimination and without taking any action in other cases, the notices have been issued to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submit that whatever has been stated in notice dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P- 1) is only a tentative opinion of the authority and the fact that the petitioner has been given a notice shows that no final decision in the matter has been taken and the same would be only after the receipt of reply. He further submits that various facts have been stated in the notice in order to enable the petitioner to submit an effective reply. 5. Notice dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) shows that the Asst. Commissioner has issued notice to the petitioner to submit his reply. On the basis of statement, which has been made by learned counsel for the State as also going though the notice, it is clear that whatever has been recorded, is only a tentative opinion and cannot be a final decision in the matter. The very fact that the petitioner has been given,a notice shows that an enquiry is conteraplated in the matter. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the ,-^f3^.\ ^- petitioner that the final decision has been taken in the matter and the issue has been pre-judged. 6. It is well settled that before taking any action for cancellation of appointment or termination on the ground that that the appointnient were illegal or without following the procedure prescribed by law/binding instructions, proper opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded and enquiry is to be held. In view of submission which has been made by learned counsel for the State, there is no reason for this Court to hold that respondent would not hold proper inquiry. However, it is observred that respondents shall duly consider the reply filed by the petitioner and hold appropriate enquiry before coming to any conclusion adverse to the interest of the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge gen__^