-SfiiSiSKBSS iSE ' s,at»iB>g' ::.';'!'.,;mw^0liE ^o]iiEmKF^^ t 3^"£^!go^No;.^08.^20((4 PETITIONER : Anup Kumar Gupta, S/o Keshav Prasad Gupta, Aged about 29 years, R/o Village Sodekela, P.0. Badehaidi, Tehsil <fe District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS JRESPQNDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh - Through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, DKS Building, Mantralaya, Raipur(CG). 2. The Chief Executive OfiGcer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh (CG). 3. The Chief Executive OfBcer, Janpad Panchayat, Pussore, Tehsil & District Raigarh (CG). (WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aanihotri. J.) Present : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 . ORAL ORDER (Passed on ttas 18th day ofJuly, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner impugns tiie validity and legality of the order dated 03.08.2002 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat & Rural Welfare Department, Raipur, as well as the order dated 30.12.98 (Annexure P/3), passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur, in Appeal No. 21/89 A-15/9B. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that marks awarded to fhe petitioner, on account of experience, was wrongly calculated. He further submits that fhe marks awarded to the petitioner was not m aeeordanee wrth eireular 29:05:98 (Annexure P/6^: ft ^,;;T^3&^^ •^y ,^^\ ^ ^ ^L. ^-^r.. ^: ^-. -Tl "s'..^y ^•'i^^S^' (^cl is further submitted that condition ofhaving eight months experience in one academic session has been deleted by the said circular dated 29.05.98, thus, the petitioner is entitied to fall marks i.e..9 marks instead of 1.39. 4. The Select Committee has granted the petitioner 1.39 marks for his work in the academic session 1996-97 fc>r total 50 days. In view ofthe circular dated 29.05.98, the petitioner is entitled 9 marks instead of 1.39 marks. Ifthe petitioner were granted 9 marks on account ofexperience, the petitioner vvould have been in the merit list. 5. The selection took place in the year 1999. The successful candidates have already been appointed. It appears that, they have been working ever since. The petitioner has filed this petition without impleading the selected candidates who may be substantially affected if the petition is allowed. Thus, no relief can be granted at this stage. No useful purpose would be served, even if 9 marks are granted to the petitioner. The other persons who have already been selected, may be replaced as a consequence. Thus, at this stege, no order can be passed to re-consider the case of the petitioner and quash the entire select list, particularly when the selected candidates have not been impleaded as party respondents. 6. Looking from all angles, there is no ground to upset the select list at this stage, particularly for want ofrepresentation ofthe selected candidates. 7. In view ofthe foregoing, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed No order as to costs. Satish K. 'Aimii Judge iajm^-—-