Jitendra Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.1839 of 2009 Jitendra Kumar, W/o Shri Ramdular Satnami, aged about 27 years, Village Junwani, Gram Panchayat Junwani, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Panchayat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Additional Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Junwani, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6. Satish Kumar Tandan, S/o Melaram, aged about 33 years, Village Junwani, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7. Bratlal, S/o Mahesh Dhobi, aged about 40 years, Village Junwani, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
8. Sarafraj Khan, S/o Abdul Kalam Khan, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Junwani, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.7 : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/01/2016 1.
Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the State and Respondent No.7. 2.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.6 was wrongly appointed being a Panch himself. The Petitioner was only the nephew of a Panch which did not render him ineligible for consideration. 3.
After Respondent No.7 did not join, appointment had been offered to the Petitioner. The appellate authority wrongly granted relief to Respondent No.6 after his appointment was declared null and void by the Sub Divisional Officer. 4.
The revisional order dated 19.2.2008 states that Respondent No.6 had already resigned from his post as Panch.
5.
At this belated point of time, the Court is not inclined to grant any relief to create further turmoil and leaves it open for the Petitioner to be considered in accordance with law as and when fresh selections are notified. 6.
The writ petition is disposed.
Sd/- (Navin Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Gopal