BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. guczki OF 2010 SINGLE BENCH / Ku. RAMA KURRE, PETITIONER D/o Shri Priyadas Kurre, aged about 4O years, Residing at C/o shri H.D.Patel Om Nagar Jarahabhata, Near Mahanti English Medium School Bilaspur, District— Bilaspur(C.G .) . VERSUS {go RESPCNDENTS L/ State of Chhattisgarh, Through— Secretary Law (Election work branch) Department D.K.S. Bhawan , Raipur [C.G.] 2.x District Election Officer, (Collector) District» Korba [C.G.] 3. eputy District Election Officer, District‘ Korba [CG .l WRIT pETITION UNDE‘R ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Q ‘3, f D HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR @ SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOI-IAN SHRIVASTAVA J Writ Petition lS§ No.548112010 K11. Rama Kuxre PETITIONER Versus RESPONDENTS State 0f Chhattisgarh and OrS. Aggearance: Shri Ashok Swarnkar: counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 27.6201 l) Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has called in question, correctness and validity 0f order dated 25th November, 2005, order dated 27 October, 20 10 passed by respondent No2 as also memo dated 4.9.20 10 issued by respondent No.3. Q) Case of the pe'iitioner is that the petitioner, who was duly registered with employment exchange, was considered for short time engagementfappointment in connection With the work of preparation of voter’s photo identity card vide order dated 25th November, 2005 (Annexure P~ 1) :13assed by the Collector and District Election Officer, Korba, Though the petitioner submitted her joining on '28. 1 12005, the petitioner was not aiiowed to work . @ and vide order dated 15m December, 2005 (Annexure P—3), the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, rejecting joining submitted by the petitioner. . Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was duly considered and appointment in connection with the work of preparation of voter’s photo identity card, though for limited period, cancellation of petitioner’s appointment is clearly illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the present is not a case where the appointment was made on account of any misrepresentation or suppression of the petitioner. He refers to note—sheet filed along with memo dated 49.20 10 (Annexure P~7) to submit that the application were duly considered and when it was found that employees who had earlier worked or surplus employee were not available, a conscious decision was taken to consider the cases of other applicants, including that of the petitioner and the appointment order was issued. Therefore, the 1 cancellation is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before cancellation, an opportunity of hearing ought to be affOrded to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent—State submitted that the State Govt. on 5. 12.2002 (Annexure R— 1) had issued instructions to the Chief Election Ohicer that any work of preparation of voter’s photo identity card, services of only those who have earlier worked or are surplus may be availed, Even @ then, the petitioner who did not belong either of the categories was appointed by the District Election Officer, which was contrary to the Govt. instructions. This having been realized, later on, impugned order of cancellation was passed. He further submits that the cancellation was not based on any allegation of misconduct and therefore no opportunity of hearing is necessary. 6. The order of appointment of the petitioner shows that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis up to 31.3.2006 as Assistant Grade ~lll in connection with the work of preparation of voter’s photo identity cards. Order dated 5. 12.2002 (Annexure R- 1) issued by the State Govt. shows that oniy those would be appointed for preparation of voter’s identity cards, who have earlier worked or surplus. Admittedly, the petitioner did not belong to either of these two categories. it is true that the District Election Oiiicer, finding that none of the candidates of the two categories are available, proceeded to appoint number of persons, including the petitioner who did not belong to the category to which appointment was limited. Such action on the part of the Election officer is clearly in contravention of the Govt. instructions dated 5.12.2002 (Annexure R— 1). Therefore, i am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel of the petitioner that the cancellation was illegal. Even before this Court, it could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did/“not belong to any of the two f\ categories of employees who can be appointed as per the State Govt. instructions dated 5.12.2002. Therefore, I am not inclined \ \ «aa.Vama was... . , w to interfere with the order of cancellation only on the ground of violation of principles of naturai justice as the result is forgone and other View is not possible. 7. Consequently, I do not f1nd any merit in the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. w”’——A"—4—=r\ Sdl- ‘ Man'mdra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Pravesn Mwm2;wr,