IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. •i~t^s 12005 PETIT10NER \0 y,..< ^v,..r'y«.'- ^"..-•:"^.y ^y .. "x/-"o^'..--•'" ^-•""eS^^0^-""' ^5^" -^y RESPONDENTS ?> A' -^\ \ ..\ : /Parmeshwar Patel S/o. Gopichand Patel Aged about 26years Presently posted as Shikshakarmi Grade-111 At Govt. Upps. School Balpur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) R/o. Vill. & Post Sanda, Baramkela District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS :}/State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Department of Panchayat & Rural Development , Mantralaya D.K.S., Bhawan , Raipur (C.G.) The Collector , Jangjir-Champa District Jangjir-Champa (C.G.) 3. Janpad Panchayat Dabhara Through : Its Chief Executive Officer Dabhara, Dist. Jangjir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / s> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 4145 of2005 Parmeshwar Patel. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. > WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Gbvemment Advocate for the State/respondentNo. 1 and 2. Shn N.N.Roy, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 06th day ofApril, 201 1) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the question of law involved herein asto whether the services of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, after appointment can be cancelled on the ground that there was irregularity in the selection process. The said issue was considered and decided by this Court in Ku. Punam & Others v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others . Leamed counsel appearing for the other side fairly submit fhat the instant petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Ku. Punam & Others (supra). This very question came up for consideration before this Court in -Ku. Punam & Others (supra). While allowing the case of Ku. Punam & Other (supra), this Court observed as under: "22. The cases on hand are not the cases of cancellation of the selection process, the selection process have not been found vitiated on account of any reason ' 2008 (2) CGU 366 including mass copying or mass irregularities . The present cases are •where the appointment orders, after having given ejfect to, hccve been cancelled subseqziently, on discovery of some facts that some of the candidates had submitted false and forged documents to obtain the appointments. 23. Applying the -well settled principles of law to the facts of the present cases, the respondents/authorities have already prepared a second select list on the basis of the selections held earlier. On scrutiny,, most of the candidates found place in the second list and their appointments are continuing, as such. some of the candidates could not find a place in the second list after scrutiny on account ofdoubtful documents submitted by them. It is, therefore, directed that the candidates who have not found place in the second list be afforded an opportunity of hearing to establish genuineness, truthfulness of the documents submitted by them for obtaining appointment on the posts before their appointments made earlier are cancelled. In view of the well settled principles of law, this petition stands disposed ofin terms ofKu. Punam (supra). No order asto costs. Amit