n iH C^^s^l^ 3Rj .p Rrs.'ny. J^ r^ ^ ' '';'- iusSs &?&.^^^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSIGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)No C^-^ 12007 "-^- PETITIONERS .••^ .••'''I'".- \^y..^ /\v.--:/y-,/ ^^£// >'.••'" .<s?>-' €^/ ^^" (>• RESPONDENTS c'l'-l' c^ ^""-^ /' .t,1"* '"f*,, t%\ '"^'s'^-^f'^ ./y ^.!.a?i^ ^•'''CS!;Ky:-""c' 1. Pradeep Kumar Gupta s/o Shri Bihari Prasad Gupta, age 22 years, r/o village Vijay Nagar, Tehsil Pal, District Surguja. 2. Smt. Tara Gupta, w/o Sambhu Prasad Gupta, age 24 years, r/o village Vijay Nagar, Tehsil Pal, District Surguja, C G. VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C-G. 2. The Collector, Surguja, At/Post Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. 3. Sachiv, Jila Saksharta Samiti, Surguja, At/Post Ambikapur,, District Surguja, C.G. 4. C.E.O. Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, District Surguja, C.G. 5. Prabha Devi w/o Santosh Yadav, age 22 years, r/o Vijaynagar, Tehsil Pal, District Surguja, C.G. 6. Amarnath s/o Nanhu Singh, age 22 years, r/o Vijay Nagar, Tehsil Pal, District Surguja, C.G. 4«^ WRIT PETIT1QN UNDER ARTICLE 226/^sr QEJ^JE CONSttTUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BU-ASPUR SINGLE^ENCM : HQN'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. WRIT PETITION (S.l N0.568 OF 2007 Petitioners versus Respondente Pradeep Kumar Gupta and another The State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr.A.K.Prasad.counselforthepetitioners. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the Stete/ respondents No.1 and 2. ORDER (Passed on 29th Day of January, 2007) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submitsthat pursuant to the advertisement, petitioner No.1 applied for appointment to the post of Organiser (Cuttural Centre) and petBoner No.2 applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Organiser (Cultural Centre), for Wllages Vijaynagar and Katanpara, respectively. 2. According to the peUtioners, in the first list, which was tentative list, the peBtioners were shown having more marks, but, when the final list was published, some other candidates, whose names did not appear in the tentative list, were shown as ttie selected candidates on the basis of having obtained more marks. Accordihg to the petitioners, this is indicattve of manipulation and irregularities coramitted byttieofficers. 3. In view of the fact that the setecUon process has to be done under supervision of Sub-Divisional OflScer (Revenue) and Tahsildar, in Uie interest ofjustice, it is desirabte Uiat the Sub-Dhrisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj, Distnct Surguja should look into the matter after giving notice to the petiUoners and other concerned parties and pass appropriate order, within a period of four weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order. 4. For Uie reasons above-stated, this peBtion stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sopal