é HKGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILAS@ $5 V H WRIT PETmON (C) No. 3459 OF 2008 (Writ petition under Article 2261227 of the Constitution of India) - Single Bench :Hon‘ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :~' Shri C..i.K. Rao, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Aiok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDgR §0RAL) ’ (Passed on this 16‘“ day of Juiy, 200$) t Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. . A— Chailenge in this petition is to the orders datedv2‘9-5-2008 (Annexure — Pit) and 17-6-2008 (Annexure - P12) passed by the respondent i No.4 whereby the petitioner was denied the benefit of ciause 8.2 of H the scheme/instructions of admission to the industriai Training institute (for short “the lTi’) tun by the State Government ‘ {Annexure -§ P/Zi. '3. 'Shri Rao, teamed counsei appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner being daughter of Laiia Prasad Tiwari, .who is'an empioyee of the iTi, Ambikapur, is entitied to consideration under ' horizontai reservation category to the extent of‘5%. 4. Per contra, Shri Bakshi, iearned Govt. Advocate. appearing for the State, subrnits that the petitioner is the married daughter wheteas .XV 71% i U, a ,1 PETH'mNER - Rakhi Ra'ni Tiwari, daughter of Prasad Tlwari, aged about 27 District residence Sarguja of (CG). Darripata, Ambikapur, RESPONDENTS Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Sanchanaiaya, Raipur Rojgar Evam Prashikshan,' (CG. 2. mstitutes, Joint Director, Bilaspur, Industriai Training Chhattisgarh. 3. Admission incharge (COPA), Training institute, Ambikapui, .DiStric: Sarguja (CG). . 4. 'Principai, Industriai Training % reservation is meant for the un—married daughters oniy not for the married daughters. l have heard learned counsef appearing for the parties, perusecf the pleadings and the documents appended theretc. On bare perusal of the sehemelinstructions (Annexure — P17), it appears that there is no discrimination hetweeh the married I daughters and un-married daughters, as clause 8.2 sub clause (4) of l the schemeiinstructions reade that’the sons and daughters of the departmental officers and empioyees would be entitled to 5%> reservation in all the lTlsJCentre of Excellence. There is no logic in support of the contention advanced by $hri Bakshi, learned Govt. Advocate. The scheme is unambiguous, clear I and is capable to only one meaning and, as such, no other meahing can be given to the provision. 'ln View of foregoing, l am of the considered View that the petitioner is entitled to consideration for admission to lTl under clause 8.2 (4) of the scheme/instructions. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and. the ' impugned orders dated 29-5—2008 (Annexure - PH) and 1 7-6-2008 - (Annexure - P12) are hereby quashed. Necessary consequences shall follow. No order asto costs. “N a ~ a Sd/- JSatish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri