IH SHS BON*BLg 2103 QOUSS OP 0BEA!l"ItIS8ABB M BXMgpra» V«P*NO< 3^Q 72001, pS2I2IO!iISa» .•:-:9{'? ^'^^ ^'f'A.--" ^^:"'' w ^^' ^^ ^:\ '"^^ BAJBB®fiAPBASAB KOSBIMHA,, S/0» SHSI aAMJ®®AirK@SBWAaA» A8®D ABOI2 It Yearg^ BBSXBB er aii>as»ASA» BAlK@NtilHPU& BIS'1;2» KOBSA ( 0*6») f-- \' IiSSPONSBTO&< v E a s u s S 1» S^GBB%AKX» MiBBYA PSABBSH ^BLX©SBSVIGB Eesideaoy Aa'ea, INBOBB! ( M»P»;) 2, EXAMINA'EION QON'BSOI.aS, M*i>« rtJBI»IG SEKVIOS ©OM-IISSION Sesideaoy ATOB^ IN502B ( M*P«») ^ ^te^ PSSX'BZON UBBISR ABSXGMS 226/227 0? SBB GONS'ri'Eusxoir oy im3£&w T XI-HC-22 <3V P?, '^fr^FT^/t^ W.P«No.320/2001 W^ff%EW%^"""<""<"<<"'""""<"'"""^^ 2(N} " f^^' air^T^ t^Ti'^^Tt^T '^RW^Tfi^ sTit^t'^n^T ^WcT Snat* "eena shastrl., le^rned counsel for the petitioner, Dr.^.K, Shukla » learned Heard ^ f|Ff TTfq^f -^ f^r^ Tf^T??'R -^-3TP^T[ .3?T^7I , Dy.A.G, for the respondents/Sifcat®< ^^ The matter relates to c]onduc^zt,he exarainations for recruitiaent of candidates fojr judicial ser^ice, Learned couns@X for cthe petitioner sjtates that the advertisement was issued in December, 1998J^^xaminations were held ira 1999 and the narae of the petjitioner had k«n appeared at ^ }. serial no«2 ira fehe supplemenjfcary listo The contention of the p^titioner is that the very determinatlon of percentage |Ln respect of persons beloi^ging to OBC as inentioned in the ajaverfciseatent is contrary to the deeision of the Supreme ^ourt in this ffegard, Br»N.K< Shukla» learned Dy.A.G. for the State submits [that the examination was oonfucted a long time ago and the ideclaration of result also ti|>ok place in 1999. Cause of jaction arose in 1999itself. In this view of the mat^er, the High Court of Chhattls- jgarh would not have jurisdic^ion to examine the matter apart- from the fact as to whether cause of action actuaXly subsists. JAfter hearlng counsel repres^nting the parties and on perusal 1 i r.ra ^i^ ,»2 T 3:nt?T ^5<cb ( ^C(?^<^T ) ^Ti^r^T f^F3?T^T '^RW^f^ rsnr ^TT^T ^H^R ^fiTT •• 2 of tfae averments A^ this that priina facie only the or the Courts of Madhya E tion and not this Court of the case^ Aecordingl^ this petition, The peti^ •'RTR^f^f^tTf^ZH: '^ST^rqw^T Ipetition^ I am o£ the view High Court of Madhya ^radesh 'radesh will have the Jurisdic- in ttie facts a^ circumstaxi^e Z am not incliaed to aecept ,ion JLs accordingly dismissed^ Sd/- Chief Justice ;^ GRPRJ—FS/311—1/2001—50,000. + C<L<q-> -w