c^^^Z- ^ COA:) ^ IN THE HI6H COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.6.) WRITPETITEON. (S) NO.'^ 1 0£2Q11 PETETCONER:- Smt. Ritika Deshpande W/o. Shri Rohit beshpande, aged about 30 Years, r/o.Ashok Park Dharampura, Tahsil and'Distt.- Jagdalpur (C.G.) r?^<^ .'^' y^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh throu9h the Secretary Panchayat and Rurat Development Department Mantralaya D.K.S. Building Raipur ( C.6.) 2. Collector Jagdalpur,Distt.-Jagdalpur (C.6.) 3. The Chief Executive officer District Panchayat Jagdalpur, bistt.- Jagdalpur (C.G,) WRIT PETCTEON UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUJION OF INDIA 1. PARTCCULARS OF THE PETCTCONER As stated in thecause title above. 2. PARTICULARSOF THE RESPONDENTS As stated in the cause title above ^t, y 3^ v HIGH COURT OE CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WMTPETmON(S) No.271of201I : Smt. Ritika Deshpande." VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTnTUTION OF INDIA ' • -.::-,,,.... SB: Hon'ble ShriSattshK. Aenlhotri.J. Present: DrSanjeetSharma, Advocatefbrthepetitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Goverament Advocate for the State/ Respondent No. 1 and 2. ORDERfORAL) (Passedonl9tilday of January, 2011) 1. By this petition. the petitioner seeks a directionto the respondents to consider Ifae candidature of tfae petitioner and to issue appointment order for the appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi, Grade II, in science group. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, is that fhe petitioner, having all the requisite qualifieation, appeared m the examination fbr seiection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Kanni Grade HI and Grade II. The petitioner secured 98.97 maiks. The petitioner was also in possession of B.Ed examination certificate. Counselling was held by the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent No. 3 on 19.11.2010 whereupon she appeared alongwith her documents. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner subfflits that after eounselling, the Ust of selected candidates were publislied in tile newspaper wherein the petitioner could aot find her name, when admittedly, she has qualification of B.Ed degree also. The petitioner has obtained information fi-om the respondent No. 3 regarding vacant post wherein it was informed that there are some vacant posts available. The respondent authorities, in an arbilrary manner, are not appomting the petitioner, though there is suffieient vacant posts available. Shri Sharma further submits that the ^ Amit petitioner has also made a representation to the Chief Executive Qfficer, Jila Panchayat, Jagdalpur for granting him appointment on ftie post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II, which is pending consideration. 4. Heard leamed coimsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. — 5. The case of the petitioner is that. even after attending the counselling wherein her testimonials were found correct, the petitioner has not been given appointment for the post of Shiksha Kanrn Grade II. It is not the case where any candidate who seeured less marks fhan the petitioner, has been granted appointed. 6. Further, the petitioner has made a representation on 16.12.2010 to the respondent No. 3 for redressal ofher grievances, which is also the subject matter ofthis petition. The petitioner ougfat to have waited for a reasonable time to eaable the respondent No. 3 to take decision pn her representation as law in flris regard is well settfed fhat a stalutory representation 6r appeal hasto be decided within a reasonable time i.e. within 3 to 6 months. (See: S.SJfathore v. State ofMadhya Pradesh ). 7. In view of fhe foregoing, the petition, being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. However, it is expected that the respondent No. 3, inthe event,the representation prefen-edbythepetitipner is pending consideratioii, shall consider and decide in aeeordance wifh law, as expeditiously as possible. S. No order asto costs. : r SatishK.Agnibotri Judge .1(1989)4SCC582