r'n... ••r^yfS'^f ^U?S£iHy Pstltlon^i' •g"s UR 'bie irs Dnsrencira ivissaira ,?Fn.l.^ Q'. ''& a .^ii^ 'w^s ; M r- i.rau.-ir JJ 3 SAB^UtS f vss''^' Vy7rit P^lf<f!;rsi^ iC^ N.^ ^T^^' raf ^^'lfs S-^a.S^ii'i^'S ^ S^di'i' Ss^ai^tf %i'%F' "LP'ii Sa'vd ^^i E^ y^^ .^-^ /^ Kniteswar Pr )out 35 S/o Shri 'ma, aged /eterinar' Fieid Officer, R/o vlli-Dhaurabhatta, Post-ltar, Tah-h3iairaaarh, Dlstt. Rajnandgaon (CG) ^. 3. The State of Chhattisgarh Throuah secreiary, uepanment ot vetennan/ Services, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, District Raipur (CG) Deputy Secretary, Department of Veterinary Services, DKS Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Distt. Raipur (CG') Director, Veterinary Services, Dlstt. iajnandgaon (CG) Reaistrar, indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyiaya, Krishak Nagar, Distt. Raipur (CG) Dular Singh Thakur, S/o Shri Not Known, Asst. Field Officer, R/o Office of Deputy Director, Vetennary Services, Dlstt. Ralpur (CG) ihri ihri Azad Slddlqui, counsel forthe petitioner. Sumesh Bajaj, G.A. forthe State. '^ E /n7 i n oni n'i i \uf . l U.^.w i u The petitioner appeared for the B.V.Sc. & A.H Bachelor's course for the vear 2009-2010 as departmenta! candldats after seeking permission from the Department and secured 38.88% marks. A merit !ist (Annexure P-3) was prepared of a'! the candidates, who appeared as departmental candidates for tht above course and in the merit list, the petitioner was piaced at No.3. 4 seats were reserved for the departmentai candldates snd the sams had to be filled up according to the reservation -%- provided in the syl'abus of P.M.T'B.S.C. Nursing Examination, 2009. The petitioner fiied writ petition No.5952/2009 vvhen he learnt that three other candidates, who secured comparatively less marks than the petitioner, have been selected for admission. However, the petition was disposed of as wlthdrawn vide order datsd 13.01.2010 (Annexure P-4) with iiberty to the'petitioner to make detai'ed representatlon before the Director, Veterinary Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur raising all the grievances raised ir; thls pet'tion. Such authority was also dlrected to conssder and decide the same sxDeditiouslv in accordance with iaw. The ostit onar subin tt^d fSDrsssntat QH 3Hd th8 S8m© hss b88H r'-si^r'^.ssH ';?1rJ-3 l?T';'>ti s^r'sr'l r^rH^" ?">.? ^r^^^av' T'S r3^'1 •ri'^f.'s?^ '' ^d. Q'7 '^it/l f^ ^ '^f i ^^ -^f ^ ^ 'vj V =-^ -^ ^ J i ?»"Uc^ i I ^•^*^ •U ^ ^ ^^ i ^*^ ] j" \ u: J ^^y\u i ^" i j ^ ^ L:i^^>A ;f ^T^ ^-f/ Lf n .-^-U^ ? •wir« r"'~fi^. ..-^ !! 'i s<SU;d counsel for the Detitioner submito that resoondent No,5 aiso appeared in the examinatlon for admlssion to the above course as departmentai candidate in Scheduled Caste cstegory. He secured 30.26% of marks in the examination and he vvas placed at S!. No.9. His petition yvas also disposed of as .withdrawn with liberty to make representation. However, he has been granted admission to the Veterinan/ and Animal Husbandrv College, Anjora, Distt. Durg (CG) only because he fiied contempt petitioR against the respondent authorities though he secured less marks than the petitioner whereas, the respondents have rejected the rep.resentatlon of the petitioner on the ground that he. has not compteted the required length of sen/ice i.e. 5 years. 3. On the other hand, 'earned Govt. Advocate submits that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of as withdrawn with iibertv to the Detitioner to file reDresentation and subsequen'dy, his representation has also been rejected. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the eariier writ petition is th@ B8TH6 3S that h38 bssn fBlssd in thls o8tltlon snd thsrafon -J- the subsequent writ petition h by doctrine of resjudicata. not maintainabie as the same is hit 4. Heard iearned counsel for the Dartles. Perused the averments in the writ petition, the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition fieid by the petitloner as also the oixier of Annexure P-1 and P-2. The representation of the petltloner has been rejected with an observation that the petltioner has not compieted the requisite tength of service as per rules though he has secured mors marks than the respondent No.5, Vi'ho belongs to the Scheduled Tribe cateaorv. Since the resDondent No.5 is eiigibie as per ruies, permission was accorded to hlm for admission to the B.V.Sc. & A.H. course. The petitioner has not dispyted that he did not compiete 5 years as on 01.07.2009 as per rules. The on'y argument advanced by learned counsei for t.he petitioner in this regard is that as per setection procedure for the a'epartmental candidates under t'ne Chh.attisgarh Pubiic Service Promotion Rules, 2003, senioritv Is to be consides'ed as on 1 of January of the ye.ar or 31 of December of the same caiendar year whereas, length of ser/ice has been assessed by taking the cut of date as 01.07.2009, which is not permissible underthe law. 5. There Is no dispute that only those departmental candidates, who have completed 5 years of service, couid be, recommended for admission and the cut of date has been fixec a.s 01.07.2009 i.e. the beainnina of academic session and sihce the petitioner had not completed the requisite iength of service, t'ne respondents denied permission to the petitioner for idmission, which cannot be fauited with. Even otherwise, the petitloner's earlier petition with similar grievance has bssn disoosed of bv this Court vide Annsxure P-4 with libertv So the Detitioner to make reoresentation before the concemed authorities and thereafter. the reDresentation for adm'ssion in the LL- vear 2009-10 has been reiectsd vide A! othervviss. the academic session for which for adiTilaslon has alresdv com0 to an snd. ^l'^'^i i i S i^ )t—T^^^ i 1 ^ ^ ^'i^^ ~fa.-i 3 J '^a' ^^'i»^ V L-fc*^ ^/'^ ; •- '-erf^ ^ 'L»? cn^ ;; ^ '^' J ^'-^; fl SV'! If:a .-I C./ci^- 6. On the basis of aforssaid discussions. ths instant setition csnnot bs sntsrtBinsd. Ths Dstltlon s accordinQlv dlsinisssd. No f^rriar •^!rs 'f'f^ .!m;ricits; Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- .; R.N. Chandrakar