KANJEERA PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner impugns the validity of the order dated 20-2-2006 (Annexure P/18)passed by the Collector, Surguja, in Case No. 13/a-89/2004-2005 (Nasrin Bano Vs. Gram Panchayat, Jigdi and others), whereby the application of the petitioner for intervention impleadment was rejected holding that since the case does not involve the property or land dispute, therefore, it was not necessary to implead the petitioner as intervener

(2.) THE facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Urdu Contract teacher, Class III (woman), in Janpad Panchayat Rajpur, gram Panchayat Jigdi, Rajpur, pursuant to an advertisement dated 3-10-2003 and participated in the interview held on 17-2-2004 (Annexure P-1 ). The selection process was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Appointment and conditions of Service) Rules, 2001. According to the petitioner, despite the fact that the respondent No. 8 did not participate in the selection process including interview, the respondent No. 8 was appointed on 5-8-2004 as urdu Contract Teacher (Annexure P/9/ ). Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a complaint before the Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur. The Chief Executive officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur, cancelled the appointment of the respondent No. 8 on 8-9-2004 (Annexure P/10 ).

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the respondent No. 8 preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambikapur. The sub Divisional Officer, Ambikapur, dismissed the appeal on 26-5-2005 (Annexure P/12) holding that the appointment of the respondent No. 8 was not in accordance with law. Thus, the order dated 8-9-2004 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Rajpur, was confirmed. Further, being aggrieved, the respondent No. 8 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Ambikapur on 14-7-2005 (Annexure P/13 ). The respondent No. 8 did not implead the petitioner as necessary party before the Sub Divisional officer, Ambikapur, as well as before the Collector, ambikapur, in appeal. The petitioner accordingly filed an application on 18-7-2005 (Annexure P/16) before the collector, Ambikapur, for permission to intervene in the matter being necessary party to the dispute. The collector, Ambikapur, dismissed the application of the petitioner on unsustainable ground that the dispute does not pertain to the property or land, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to intervene in the matter.