Muralidhar Chouhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 928 of 2019 Muralidhar Chouhan S/o Shri Ramlal Chouhan Aged About 46 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village And Post Janakpur, Police Station And Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

4. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

5. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

6. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

7. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :

Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State :

Mr. Rahul Jha, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 12.04.2019 Heard 1.

On the perusal of the present petition, it appears that the petitioner is not an aggrieved party. A general complaint has been made that on the basis of the forged certificate, various persons have been appointed as teachers. The nature of the averments as has been made, cannot be ordered for an open ended enquiry. Taking into sweep, the entirety of the persons who are working, if the

petitioner is candid of the fact that certain persons have obtained the service on the basis of the forged document then specific averments have to be made for it. In such eventuality, the petitioner would have a different remedy to be availed. There cannot be a general omnibus roving enquiry. No order can be made for enquiry of such nature by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2.

Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Sd/- ( Goutam Bhaduri ) JUDGE Vishakha