$§GH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘NRIT PE‘ITI‘ION (S) No. 514 of 2008 Tara Chand Patley aged 32 years, S/o Shri Terash Ram Patiey, R/o Viiiage w Kewtra Post — Pachpecii via Magturi Block ~ Masturi, District ,— Bilaspur {Chhatiisgarh} PETITIONER : VERSUS : 1. Siate of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, ?anchayat and Rural Development Bepartment, D.K.S. Bhawam Maritralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Unien of Inclia, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Panchaym and Rural Development Department, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner (Employment Guarantee Cell) V1l<a5 Bhawan, Civil Lima Raipur (CG) 4. The Joint Director (Employment Guarantee Cell) OEice of Development Commissioner V’ikaSli . Bhawam Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) - v RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Jitendra Nath Nande. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri U.N.S.Deco, Government Advocate for the State. RESNWENTS ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25mday of January, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the post. of Programme Officer at Janpad Panchayat level. In the list prepared on. the basis of marks obtained in M.B.A., the petitioner found his place at serial no. 21. The list so prepared at Annexure P/4 was for the purpose of practical examination of computer and interview. Aiter having gone through computer practical examination and interview, the final list was published on 22.12.2007 (Annexure Pf?) for appointment. The petitioner wae shocked to note that his name was not in the final select list. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has done very well in the computer practical examination as well as in the interview. W )EN On the basis of seif same statemem that the petitioner has done very wel} in the computer pramical examination ami interview, a \mt/directicn cannot be issued. Even otherwise, mere finding place in the list prepared on the basis of marks obtained in MBA, for the purpose of further examination of computer practical and interviewldoes not confer any right on the petitioner to claim his placement in the final list, and further appointment thereof. Learneei counsel finther submits that it amounts to viotion o Article la f 1 anti 16 ofthe Constitution of India. I am at loss to nderstan how it 4 ud mo v T aunts to iolation of Articie 14 and 16 of the Constitution. he petitioner cannot be treated at par wit he seiected candidate when it h t s apears that the petitioner has secured less marks than the selected p candidates in the computer practical examinatn as wel as interw. io l vie io i r The petitner has failed to make out a case that any discriminaton o arbitrariness allegedly have been exercised by the authorities by not selecting the petitioner. The petition is devoid of merit, frivolous and baseless. T, hus this petition is dismised, summariy. s l i is hotr‘ Sath K. Agnii Judge f). Sd/- 1:;4 a itJ a e)/ano ,v