5" ^^ ..^s^ ^-^^' i3c^ ^^....- '^•"" c^ {v7^- Single Bench -7 WRIT PETITION (S.) No.7^ /2011 Sint Meena Dhand aged about 40 years, W/o Mithlesh Kumar Dhand R/Village Sahaspur, Dalli, Distt. Rajnandgoan VERSUS /' RESPONDENTS 1 isparh throui The State of Secretary, Departinent, D.: 2. District Education Officer Bastar, Jagdalpur 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar 2^ ^Sf '<<l'4!ivl<<, aTll'H'IS, fs|01«lj,< ..LQ...E>.(^.)...lGJ?..:...%'a^ sf^V 'T^? ( yit^q'i'?) ^iRi-fi'k WT3?I^^qt^ TOiimflteTaii^r SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan Silirivastava. j h3s S'nri Parag Kotecha, counsei for snn A.V. ynndhar, panel Lawy advance copy. By this petition, the petitioner hs vaiidity of order dated 25/2/201 1 by wr services ofthe petitioner. ~he ground on which the order ( the order is arbnrary and iliegai as petitioner submtted that the authority condition was inoorpQrated in the sought itseiT was misoonceived. Hf I possessed of proper and valid ; mereiy beoause the Chhattisgarh refused to grant equivalence, terminatit On the other hand, learned remedy of riling appeal before the Coile| (Kecruitment and Conditions OT Semce;| ine. submissions made by lea| grounds urged in the petition show that| termination. Though ihe grounds v/h| accepted, may result in setting aside ot| extra ordinary reason that this Court sh| ihe petitioner to first avail aiternative| Collector. The impugned order has of principles of natural justice or absenc| fne petitioner. ^r ror the State/respondents 1 and 2 on cailea in question, tne correctness and wiliicn, respondent No.3 has terminated ine order ffi oert!Tic&te oh St6te sntsu ndt 'til'l<(<'tll-( WfvS ^f f5^t <fat$l< ^? sifaH 311^1 (|)T termination has been challenaed is that ilso maiafide. Learned counsei for the pas not propeny considerea tnat peculiar OT appointment and tne equivalence further submits that the petitioner is issued by recognized institution and M^dhyamik Shiksha Mandai, Raipur has of service could not be ordered. counsei submits that there exists a ;tor under C.G. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi Rules, 2007. 1'ned oounsel for the petitioner and the |the petrtioner is aggrievect by the order of ;h are being raised by the petiiioner, if |the order oftermination. 1 do not find any Id entertain this petition without insisting statutory remedy ot appeal betore tne ic|t been assaiied on the ground of violation ofjurisdiotion. Though, in the grounds, it W, <W-iWIW—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ff T- -f ,< „/- 2-> s .?' ^-.--"' -s ..^' '3^1 '^i<<id'4, tSTil''-i'i6, fs(di'yy,< lA5p(^)v-o. 3^57' sn^r •q^^ (lyi^«<<»tT) ail^iSw Rl-<i<* 'cT8n 3?[^T ^iifl^t Deepii TOiiwatei 3]i^i -°? mai$fide cniief has been stated that the order is petition to prima facie snow that the Ctjiie maiice against tne petitioner. 1 nereror^, The petitioner is however given libenyfo authonty / Coilector against the order of he petition is tinally disposea o| <=ti|<-<i<'i<fl7T ^l^^ft' ^f f^^ <^i+$K ^aTRffian^r do not Tind any pleading in ine writ Executive Orricer was imputed with any , 1 am not inciined to entertain this petition. riie statutor/ appeai before the appellate termination. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge