SAVITA MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard at the admission stage itself.

(2.) BY this petition the petitioner has impugned the order dated 21-10-2008 of Annexure P-l whereby respondent No. 2-Director, Panchayat has allowed the revision petition of respondent No. 6 preferred against the order dated 4-10-2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 contended that the Legislature has consciously excluded the expression 'Jeth' in the Explanation of Sections 40 (1) and 69 (1) of the Act, 1993 by including Devar, Devrani & Jethani in the definition of relatives and therefore, learned Director, Panchayat as also the Chief Executive Officer have rightly held respondent No. 6 to be eligible for appointment.