c^y\~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT I^Srss^^^.^^^^.. yffssswsg^^^s BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. /2004 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS :1. ..-•^^ .^^^ ^••^^^^" ,.^^§^ ,e<»" -...-•• '.> 2. Rr":: ^ 'i"-- -•' Cie.kto G .nxsX ' l-^r ^USSPU( 4. Sohan Das, aged 35 Years, S/o. Late •Latkhor Das, R/o. / Village Sarwandi, Vikas Khand Narharpur, District Nort Bastar Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Rural and Panchayat Development D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector (Panchayat) District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Narharpur Distt. North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sarwandi Janpad Panchayt Narharpur Distt. North Bastar KankerfC.G.) F 1. WRIT PET1TION_UNDER ARTICLE 226/22*7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER tu-&e._title. XJ-HC-22 SII^T^H f<;-ii<ti sn^i s^^ict) •9f^f 'S^ 'ttWM<i, w^ww, hwwy, •3 y. •^\t/ IINCTI aitjitb _.^..?...<J&:...SSi2 "g^. 2001 sii^i^giwgfOT 06.02.2004 courisel tfr chMlens respcjndent Sarwadtdi appoiati^ient Shri D.N. Prajapati, Shri P. Das, Panel Lawy^r By this writ petition und^r of India the petitioner has (Armexure P-3) issued by dated 19.12.2003 (Aimexure! Sarpanch ia pursuance ofthe The case of fhe petitione^ was appointed as contract Pmnary Middle School, all sincerily sin.ee his No.2 vide oider dated 10.12.i2 appointinent of the petitioner Rao and ofher villagers at giving aay opportunily ofhearujij I have heard leamed Leamed counsel for fhe service has been terminated I have perused fhe passed by the CoUector-respon^li that a complauit was inade by ViUage Paucliayat Sarwandi fhe Panchayat Samaj Narharpur, Distt. Bastar aud| tdacher couiisel wilhout ord^r -responpent afad Shiksla •shKlid^il-f 'RFRlf 4 fe^A <fa^K ^srfiOTan^r for the petitioner. for fhe 8ate. Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution i^Uenged the order dated 10.12.2003 No.2- CoUector aad also order P-1) issued by respondent No.4- ctrder issued bv fhe CoUector. is thaton 19.08.2003 the petitioner Class-III and was posted at ujtdi. The petitioner was workiag wifh but aU of a sudden respondent ,[2003 (Anaexure P-3) canceUed fhe the coniplaiat inade by one Mohaa '\{ill^e Paachayat Sarwandi without iljlg to him. for fhe parties. ^etitioner subnuts tbat the petitioner giviag any opportunily to him- l^r-dated 10.12.2003 (Aimexure P-3) No.2. A perusal ofwhich reveals t>ne Mohan Rao aad ofher viUagers at the inatter was enquired into by Sangafhak, Janpad Paachayat, on enquuy it was found fhat on c!n »Mxa,.^'-<ssss-': XI-Hr-22 ^^'s^jHRPi. aiidWIS. WCT'WS' ^aT/O"? siKg^i '^^i^'^i^l ^S^, S. ^^^^ ^^i.i": ...»iS& sBWRawafe 19.08.2003 for tbe post of coi|teact teacher 15 candidates were invited for interview ia wtuch fhi foiuid that the selection coamlittee do not select fhe first fhiee candidates and selected the pet] the merit Ust. The first fhree cdbdidates were local caadidates and fhey had fhe knowledge of ChB awarded zero inarks whereas thd on tfae ground of kuowledge awarded 16 inarks. Moreover, ^h.e selection of the petitioner was vitiated on account of the fact tU the member ofthe selection boa^d. Therefore, on aU fhese grounds the CoUector found irregulanty i4 the selection process aad directed for the caaceUation of the app caacefled the appointment of the knowledge of the Clibattisgadi whereas the petitioner was given ; petitioner was selected but it was tioner who was at Serial No. 14 in attisgadi language even fhey were petitioner was at Serial No. 14 aud i>f. Chhattisgadi laaguage he was at the brother of fhe petitioner was bintinent of tbe petitioner aad in pursuance of that theSarpai|ch vide order dated 19.12.2003 Ipetitioner. On the face of order datep 10.12.2003 [Aimexure P-3] it is proved fhat the selcction of fhe inanner because the brother of cominittee. Moreover, the cs|ndidate Nos. lto3 who haA the tietitioner was inade in ari irregular fbe petitiouer was ia fhe selection °\ ]auguage were given zero marlcs 16 marks on account ofwhich the petitioner was selected in prefere^ice ofthe caadidates No. 1 to 3. In view of the fact, I do not fiad a|iy substance or irregularily in fhe impugned order. Therefore, the ^etition of fhe petitioner is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed-i Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge g- -B!; W '•'WTSB'B