:yr BEFORETHEHON'BI.EHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPURfC.G.y W.P.fS)NO.)£>6^/20Q9 PETITIONER -s <J* Savita ,Nand, D/o. Shri Andriyas Nand, aged about 28 years, R/o. Shyam Nagar, Jhalap, Tahsil- V^^n^ ...-••" '^..t^.-- .fl& Mahasamund, District Mahasamuhd !IA^X&>^ '^ ._ _. '^^^' yyy^y. y RESPONDENtS 1. (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Collector, Mahasamund, District ^Mahasamund (C.G.) 5. Janpad Panchayat-Basna, Through: Chief Executjye Officer, District MahaSamund (C.G.) WRlTPETITiONUNDERARTlGLE2260FTHE CO^STiTUTIOiN?®1=INDIA PARnCULARSOFTHEPETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title. SSB.t.S ; . HIGHCaURT@B©MHy'\3a®©^R ^^BIt.ASPUR. ,WRffiF'ET~lTlON;^N©:!1S60©R,2009 PETITIONER . SavitaN^ RESPONDENTS •Versus.' ^ :, .••...- -1' : State6fClThattisgarh&:Others (WritRetitionunderArticle,226W[tlre;Constituti^ T Sjngl&BenG :'H6n'bleShriSatisW Preseht:- Shri-R. Pradhan.Advocate.foFth&petitioner; ,ShfT:ShiasBante' akuF,Pariel.l.-awyerforthe;Stafe. ^ORDEK't'ORAl-l" . ' (Passed.C)nthis27hdaypfAprii,,201,Q) 1: Challengeinthis.petitionjstotheprderdafed 31.12.2007'(Annexure P/2) Rassed' by the respondent' No. 4, i.e. the, C&M^or,^ Mahasamund, wherebythe appoiritmenf of the'petitioner alpng with 18 pthers hy order dated 18.07.2007 .(Annexure e/4) passed •byl'ttl& respondent •No.,5 i.e. Chief Exeetitive Officer, ^anpad l^ Basna, pn.the post crf Shiksha KaFmi Gra further, the Bfder dated,24.:T2.20Q8 (Artnexure,P/3) p^ respDnclent No. 3,'- i.e. Director Panchayaft^wjiereby the appeal pfeferred;by tHe'petitiQneratqngwith^ftisEsgllggitstWe^^o 31^2.2007. ^nexumF%^in^p^l®a^N@;.?1^ wasr6je(s(edupholdingtheordgrp9SsedhYI'18^Cpl]ectpr., The briet'facts, as projected by the petitioner,.are^hat-RUFSi.iant t6 ths, advertisemerUtclated^20;Q2.2007[;(Annexure P/3) issued^' respondent' NQ.,;5;^fcE~,SBtectiQn',an3' apgointmenfc^^o^^^^ vacan(^6fc89p6sts;of:ShikshaKamii^ra(:):e']ll^t^ with others made an applioafion. A; select .fistof 81 .eanclidates was: declared on approvatbythe;Gen®ral^iTiinistrafiQn'Cpnirnitt^^ erf81 setected cahdidateSr^38 persiaTis^sfngeltheserviGe^Qnth^^ c. •c. ofappointmentQrders.TMepetiticinerwasQj'ieQftheSSpersons.wtio. also joined the service On.the basis of appointment order dated 18.7:2007.(Annexure P/4). 43 ppsts remaihed vacant on account of npn-joining of the remaining eandidates. Thoygh, there was no waiting list, a new list of43 persons for appDintment on the post of Stiiksha KarmiGrade^ III wasdeGlaf'edon 12.10.2007. Pursuant to theselect listdatedl2;10.2007, •lOpersonsj&ined and 33 persons again did not jojri, Furthef" a list of. 315 persons for appointaent on the pQst of Shiksha Karmi Grade III was issued on 6.1 1.2007. On a complainf, a eommittee was Gonstituted ;by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund to enquire into the appoihtmentsofSMikshaKarmiGracle III, pursuant to three different lists • issued by the then Chief ExgGutive ;Qfficer, Jaripad Panchayat, Basna. In. eriquiry, subsequent list pf43 persons and 115 persons dated 12.10.2007 and 06.11.2007 respeGtively,werefoundciefective and^illegal. Accorclingly, sObsequent select lists i6f 43 person& and •115 persQns Were quashed pn the basis of recpmmenclation made by the Committee. Qn the basis of report submifted^ to tHe Colleetor under sectioh 85{1) of the Panchyat; ;Raj Adttihiyam, 1993; the responderif N6. 4 Cancelledthe appoihtment bf 19 persons including thepetiti6neralsQ;whowereappointedbyorderdated 18.7.2007' on the basis of first setect list of% persons, without assigning any .reason. : . . :: ' . .: •• ' ; : ' : : ,' Tfiereagainst, the petitioner alongwith ofhers pFeferred an appeal before theDirector,Panchayatin3ppealcaseNO.,163/B. 121/07.08. The Direetor, Panchayatfound fhatthe appdjntmento'fthepetitioners alongwith others was not in 'aceQrdance wifli .law, on the Basis'of report submitted by the Commitfee to th®Gli'ief? Exei:iutive Qfficer, Jila I'lilT!'' ^."Bl -./..-'f' •^T" "'-^ ^ tjowri Panchayat, Mahasamyhd, without assigning any reason. The Director, in his order has not discussed any reason for canceling the appointment of 19 Shiksha Karmis out of 38 Shiksha Karrriis who were appointed vide the select list dated 18:07.2007. The subsequent setect .lists dated 12.10.2007 and 06.11.2007 were cancelled intheirentirety. Thus.tHispetitibn. Learned courisel appearing for the parties Jointly and fairly submit •thatthe issue jnvolved in this case has already been consideFed and decided bythis Couiim BhishmadeQ Hota v. State of Chhattisgarh & Off?e/s , and pray that this petitiorr may be disposed of in sartie terms. .' .' Accprdingly, the pe.tition is allowed in termsofdecision of this Court rendered 'iri Bhishmadeo Hofa(supra). TheQrdersdated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P/1) and the orderdated 31.12.2007 (AnnexureP/2) in respect ofthe petitioner, are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 4,i.e. the Collector to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh, if SQ advised, after affording an ppportunity of hearing lo the petitioner ^•RUf"forward his case ahd thereafter, pass appropriate orcler in accOTdance with law. There shall- b^ no order asto costs. Sd/- S. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 WP (S) No.1558 of2009 (decidedon 25-3-2D10)