GIRISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have called in question the orders dated 6.4.2011 and 7.4.2011 passed by the Collector, Korba in exercise of powers under Section 85 (1) of the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). In some cases, the first order dated 22nd February, 2011 has been challenged and in some other cases, both the orders i.e. the first order dated 22.2.2011 and the second order dated 6.4.2011 have been challenged. However, the issue falling for consideration being the same, as all the petitions arise from the impugned action/order of the Collector, Korba, whereby the execution/appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade -III in Janpad Panchayat Pali, District Korba has been suspended, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THERE is no dispute about the fact that Janpad Panchayat Pali issued an advertisement for filling up 126 posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade -III and pursuant to the selection process, counselling was conducted on 5.2.2011 and 7.2.2011, however, instead of appointing 126 Shiksha Karmis in order of merit, the concerned Janpad Panchyat issued a letter of appointment in a random and indiscriminate manner without issuing any select list and without adhering to the merit and in the process, about 175 Shiksha Karmis were issued letter of appointment. When after allowing joining to 126 Shiksha Karmis, the remaining Shiksha Karmis were not allowed to join, there arose a furore leading to lodging of complaint on which the concerned Collector directed for enquiry through Zila Panchayat, Korba. The enquiry was conducted by a team of Dr. Lalit Shukla, Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Korba; Dr. A.K. Tapsi, Assistant Project Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korba and Shri J.L. Shandilya, Assistant Project Officer, Zila Panchayat.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the order of appointment having already been executed, its execution could not have been suspended by the Collector. They would submit that the Collector has no power to review or revise the order of appointment or the counselling conducted by the Janpad Panchayat dehors the procedure prescribed under the CG Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules, 1995'). Since under the said Rules, an opportunity of hearing was necessary before excising the powers of revision and the said opportunity having not been afforded to the petitioners, the impugned order is vitiated. Learned counsel have referred to Section 94 of the Act. It has also been urged that even if there were some irregularities, the entire list ought not to have been cancelled and that it is not a case of mass irregularities. It has also been argued that since the petitioners were already working, an opportunity of hearing was necessary, however, since the principles of natural justice have not been adhered, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.