@ C/g xW SB. (Service Matter! IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHI WRIT PETITIOMS) Naw’bé (2010. E PETITIONER: / Anand Kumar Swi, son of Gopal Swi, aged bout 35 years, residence of Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. Resgondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhavvan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ( N WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(S) NO.6436 OF 2010 PETITIONER Anand Kumar Swi Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. RESPONDENT ORDER (ORALI (Passed on this 18‘ day of February, 201 1) + 1. Heard Iearned counsel forthe parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to participate in the regular Selection process. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working as daily \\ wager and thereafter worked on the post of Driver on the basis of contract appointment. The respondent authorities without inviting appiications from the similarly situated candidates, have invited nominations from the employment exchange vide letter dated 7—1 0—2010 (Annexure — P/3). Though the petitioner is eligible and suitable for consideration, however, on account of the illegal method of selection process adopted by the respondent No.2, the petitioner has been deprived of his fundamental right to consideration of his candidature for employment, as enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the letter dated 7—10-2010 and submits that the decision taken by the respondent authorities is in accordance with law and the same does not Warrant any interference of this Court. 5. Be that as it may, it is the well settled principle of law that the \\\ appointment without proper advertisement prohibiting the \VV r _ opportunities to the eligible candidates to participate in the selection process for a post is illegal, as the same is de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. By letter dated 7-10-2010, the respondent authorities have restricted the other eligible candidates from participating in the selection process for appointment on the post of Driver. Thus, the method of selection itself is unconstitutional. Accordingly, any appointment whereunder the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates are prohibited from participating in the selection process, not on the ground of eligibility or others, but on the ground that the selection has not been kept open to all other similarly situated candidates is vitiated . Accordingly, the letter dated 7-10-2010 (Ann‘exure — P/3) is quashed and the petition is allowed to the above extent. Mi V" I Satish K. Agnihotn I} Judge K I 'l Sdl- W» ,