(^- ^-^Z5 SINGLEBENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.YSVNO. ^&^ /2010 S.B. ^' ' PETITIONERS :1. Smt. Sati Joshi w/o. Likhan Das, aged about 30 years, R/o. Mudkhusra, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) ^ u^ 4i' -.^ <^^.^> -<y RESPONDENTS 2. Smt. Rameshwari Tandan W/o. Rohit Kumar Tandan, aged about 36 years, R/o. Village Bangoli, Tahsi Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^" 3. Ku. Meena Sahu D/o. Shri Jagat Ram Sahu, aged about- 33 years, R/o. Vitlage Bagdehi, Tahsil Kurud, Djstrict Dhamtari (C.G.) ^" 4. Smt. Savitri Chandrakar W/o. Riddhj Chandrakar, aged about 38 years, Village Chandkhuri, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ^ 5. Maneshwari Kurre W/o. Ramnarayan Kurre, aged about 34 years, Village Sirsakhurd, DistrictDurg (C.G.) VERSUS r~ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Women & Child Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) s 1 ;Ii :ii •^ •Sl • s ^^^ ss a^-}-s' 9- Slta. ;SNj'' 'ss M& ^Si •:%SI-:' ;rS®'' ISI^i.-; l^ ^" 2. Sanchalanalaya (Directorate), Women & Child Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA !t :M F-HC—78 ^n^r ^r ^jcb '<T8ft 3fl^T %tSN? :6 p *ll»1CfllSt»H?^l» 'S^ r<iwm^,^^\w\<e, [s|dl-y^< ^j ^ (^.; rv^. ^^/ro "/^ 200 3ft^T XW? ('i^^^) wrot«^a1an^r SB : Hon'bte Shri IVIanlndraMoha 23-0e-2010 Shri C. R. Sahu, counse! for Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel advance copy. Heard on admission. This petition has been filed b} of their non-seiection for the post advertisement (Annexure P-1), Submissbn of learned cour though the petitioners did not fuifili experience as on specified cut-off various dates, the petitloners corr! submitted representation to this eff€ cut-off date for reckoning period o1 v^ith reference to subsequent dates | advertisement (Annexure P-1). petitioners have fulfilled the reqiji experience, now the respondents ^ available vacancies. It is aiso subirlt defective cn account of arbitrary fix^t An advertisement was issue^ of application form \^as 1 0-02-20091 material on record to show that petjt regard to out off date prescribe^ petitioner did not even chalienge thje Court of law. !n this petition also, ?fzfN 'RW$ff ^4 f^S '<f^<^.l< ^sffima^r ShrJvastava3_J« |ie petltioners. L^wyer for the State/respondents cn the petitioners aggrieved on account )f "Mahila Paryaveohak1 pursuant to |se! for the petitioners Js that even |he minimum requjrement of 10 years Me. i.aOI-04-2009, subsequentiy on jpleted 10 years of experience and ct. !t is a!so argued that in ail faimess experience shouid have been fixed land not from the date indicated in the is further argued that once the rement of compietjon of 10 years lould consider their case against the itted that the process of seieotion was ionofthecut-offdata wherein the last date for submission There is neither any pleading nor any ioners ever raised any objection with in the matter of experience. The same before this Court or any other io grounds have made out so as to I- :-HC—78 ^I^T ^T R{TlJch WT^Tt^t ^Jcb 4"^- Tumane 's^r •-^I^K'I^, ®ii1'Mli®,[<i<ril'ylj,< , _^.^:.CCl^..:2:.w2i0._ -„ NINdl (hNlch •—"'"•—"••y""""-^200 3fl^?T tf^? (1[^3^^) ^Kmi< ^ftaan^i —^_t demonstrate that prescriptions of 1^ reckoning period of experience, arbitrariness. Subject to compliance| statutory rules, it is open for the resp(| off date for the purposes of reckonin^ date was subsequent to the last dat| therefore, the same does not appear] petitbn, it is found that petitioners t| acquired 10 years experience only In this view of the matter, respondents to consider petitioner^ subsequently they have acquired 10 ^| Accordingly, the petition has summarily without issuing notice to aft^r 1|10 thb <=M<<t<rt^1i ^w^K ^ (~s<<l <p3T^.i< '^3?RW3TT^rr f of April, 2009 as cut-Qff date for suffered from any iltegality or of the provisions contained in the ^ndents to prescribe appropriate cut- eljgibility. It is found that the out-off ^ of submissiQn of appiication form, |to be illegat and arbitrary. From the |iemseives have admitted that they • the cut-off date i.e.01-04-2009. direction can be issued to the oandidature cn the ground that lears experience. iho merit and ss therefore dismissed respondents. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge +