-z-s" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gypta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri SunU Kumar Sinha^J. Writ Appeal No. 20 of 2008 'gs^ss*'-^ Rama Shankar Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8s others ORDER For consideration Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge SBSSIDi^i Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Gupta J ^ Sd/- Chief Justice Post for order : _^ /05/2009 Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge ,^'! K '^. i ^IV I. '^^t^r ^ssss •^ i/ 2.£ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Writ Apoeal No. 20 of 2008 APPELLANT ^Ia^-i'~^v.'^'^'-»~^^-f^ , RESPONDENTS Rama Shankar Patel S/o Ramesh, aged about 26 years, Village Bansurkuli, Janpad Panchayat Bhilaigarh, District Raipur C.G. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.l) The Collector, District Raipur C.G. (Respondent No.2) Gram Panchayat, Through Sarpanch, Village Bansurkuli, Janpad Panchayat Bhilaigarh, District Raipur C.G. (Respondent No. 3) Arjun Das Manikpuri S/o Shri Gojola Manikpuri, aged about 40 years, Panchayat Karmi/Secretary Grani Panchayat - Bansurkuli, Janpad Panchayat Bhilaigarh, District Raipur C.G. (Petitioner) (Writ Appeal under Section 2 Sub-Section (1) ofthe Chhattisgarh High CourtfAppeal to^Division Bench) Act, 20061 Appearance: Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Counsel for respondent No.4. None for respondent No. 3. ^>f-g^?^.^II^t 2 2-^ Writ Appeal No. 20 of 2008 ORDER ( ^-.05.2009) Following order of the Court was delivered by SunU Kunaar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant/respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition has filed this appeal against the order dated 4th of Januajy, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6583/2006, by which the petition Bled by respondent No.4 herein, Arjun Das Manikpuri, has been allowed in terms of the order dated 7.8.2006 passed in W.P. No. 3125/2005 and the impugned order dated 13.10.2001 (Annexure-P/5) to the extent that the petitioner shall not be allowed to work as Panchayat Karmi was quashed. (2) By order dated 13.10.2001 (Annexure-P/5 in the Writ- Petition), appointment of respondent No.4 Arjun Das Manikpuri and one Rameshwar Prasad Kewarth on the post of Secretary of concerned Gram Panchayat u/s 69 (1) of the Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam 1993 was cancelled. (3) Being aggrieved with the said order Rameshwar Prasad Kewarth filed Writ Petition No. 3125/2005, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 7.8.2006 and the impugned order dated 13.10.2001 to the extent that the petitioner therein shall not be allowed to work as Panchayat Karmi was quashed. The said order was passed on the ground that without holding regular enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1999, the .,.^r8%, "®i?'ilqj, g »w"".4' Writ Aprieal No. 20 of2008 SSsss^t'if petitioner cannot be removed or restrained from discharging his duties as Panchayat Karmi. (4) Admittedly, the order dated 7.8.2006 passed in W.P. No. 3125/2005 become final. c< (5) In the Writ Petition (S) No. 6583/2006, Arjun Das Manikpuri prayed for passing of similar order which was passed in W.P. No. 3125/2005 in case ot Rameshwar Prasad Kewarth. (6) The learned Single Judge found that Rameshwar Prasad Kewarth and Arjun Das Manikpuri both were removed by passing a common order dated 13.10.2001 on common grounds and allowed the Writ Petition filed by Arjun Das Manikpuri in terms of the earlier order. (7) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant Rama Shankar Patel was appointed on account of vacancy which arose after removal of Arjun Das Mankipuri and when the removal of Arjun Das Manikpuri was quashed, the consequence of the order would be the termination of the services ofthe appellant and he would be adversely affected. (8) There is no force in the contention raised by the leamed counsel for the appellant. Since the appellant was appointed on the vacancy which arose after removal of respondent No.4 and ultiinately the removal of respondent No.4 was found illegal and it \ was quashed in terms of the impugned order passed by the Writ Apceal No. 20 of2008 learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, the .necessary consequence would be the removal of the appellant and non-else. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which was based on the doctrine of parity and the eartier order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3125/2005 in the matter of Rameshwar Prasad Kewarth who was also removed by the common order dated 13.10.2001 along with petitioner. The incident cf removal of the appellant was a necessary consequence ofjudicial order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6583/2006, in which, the appellant was also a party respondent and the same cannot be avoided. (9) We do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (10) No order as to cost. Sd/- chiefJust,ce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge