CHARAN SINGH DHURVE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ appeal, the challenge levied is to the order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 979 of 2017, whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the appellant's case is that he was appointed as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat, Mudghusari. Respondent No.6-Krishna Kumar Markam who was unsuccessful in getting the post, challenged the aforesaid appointment of the appellant preferring an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bodla, District- Kabirdham who vide order dated 14/10/2010 (Annexure P-4) allowed the said appeal and canceled proposal No.1 dated 4/11/2007 which was passed in favour of appellant by the Gram Panchayat, Mudghusari. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal against the said order before the Collector, Kabirdham who dismissed his appeal vide order dated 22/12/2007 (Annexure P-3). The appellant, in the earlier round of litigation, challenged the said order by filing a writ petition which was dismissed vide order dated 18/12/2014 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, the appellant preferred a writ appeal against that order which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 23/07/2015 (Annexure P-6) with a liberty to avail remedies before the competent authorities. The appellant preferred an appeal in the court of the Commissioner, Durg where he initially succeeded and his appeal was allowed vide order dated 19/05/2016 (Annexure P-2). But later, considering the letter of the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Kabirdham, the Commissioner, Durg immediately reviewed his order (Annexure P-2), recalled it and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26/05/2016 (Annexure P-1). All the annexures referred to in this judgment are marked in the Writ Petition.

(3.) Further, in the second round of litigation, the appellant again preferred a writ petition from which this appeal arose, challenging that the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner, was passed in the absence of any application by any party and without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. The learned Single Judge dismissed that writ petition vide the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal.