e' n <^:.^'^^\> ^ 1.^^„·. • c ejo BEFORE THE HQN'BLE H£6HCOURT QF CHHATrESSARH AT BIL4SPUR WRIT APPEALNO. 11 8 /2010 ^ APPELl.ANT RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. Ku. Kuleshwari Dewangan, &/Q. Shri Bhalarom Dewangan, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Vitlage & Post EXinitolc, Barpara. Tahsil <& Distnct Dhamtflri (C.6.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secr&tary, fieneral Administrative Department, AAantrolaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 'Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through the Secretary, Shankar Nagar Raipur (€.$.). State Bank of Endia, Throu^h the Manager, Main Branch, High Court Road, Bilaspur (C.6.). APPEAL UNfiER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTIS6ARH HI6H CQURT (APPEAL TO &IVISION BENCW ACT. 2006 ffi?l^g'k 3IR3^§si^^ iEstSi^.c;i^ l ^^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR D. B: Hoa'ble Shri LM. Quddnsl, Hon'ble Shri Maniadra Mohan Shrivastava, Appellant: Respondent Writ Appeal No.118/2010 Ku. Kuleshwari Dewangan. Vs. State ofChhattisgarh aad two others. Appearance: Mr. Arviad Dubey, couusel for fhe appeUant. Mr. Ajit Sit^h, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondent no.l on advaace copy. Ms. Morisha Chhattri, onbehatfofMr. Y.C. Sharma, counsel for the Chhattisgarh Public Service Conunission/ respondent no.2 ou advaace copy. n ^l.^.tlN^^^^' WritAppeaI ynder Section^a (11 ofthe Cfahattisioirh Hidi Court (Appeal to Divisioa Benchl Act, 2006 ORAL ORDBR (30.04.2010) Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J Heard. 2. This writ appeal has been filed agaiust fhe impugned oider dated IIth ofMarch 2010 passed by the leamed siugle Judge in W.P.(S). No.5786/ 2009, dismissmg the said writ peUtioii. 3. The brief facts of the case are fhat fhe writ appeBant has cleared fbe prelimiaaiy examinadon conducted by the PubUc S^rvice Comniission. However, she was not peruutted to appear in the mata examination on fhe ground that the Bank Draft in sum of Rs.200/- required to be submitted alosg-wifh fhe appUcation form, in favour of PubUc Service Comimssion, payable at State Bank of Iiidia Raipur Branch No.7237, was not found, but she had enclosed awrong bank ^yf.ass',9., ^. '' s/Sasa», K "^ S'-£'r;i'<'- draft wifh her application wlrich was drawn ia favour of Ashok Textiles ou 06.06.2009 in sum of Rs.6594/- payable at AIuuadabad Mam Branch. For that reason, the appUcation of the writ appeUant was not entertained by the PubUc Service Comniission. However, on realizing the inistafee, she approached fhe Baak and found fhat a wrong baxik draft was handed over to her iastead of her own bank draft. Thereafter the Baak issued the dupUcate demaad draft on 17.8.2009 mentioumg the date of 06.06.2009 in favour of Sachiv, Chliattisgarh Lok Sewa Ayog, but by that tnae, fhe last date for subinMsion ofappUcations, was already over. 4. We carmot blame for rejectir^ ttie appUcation ofappeUant by the Public Service Coiumission on account of a wrong subinission of the bauk draft which was not in favour of fhe PubUc Service CoDimission and was ta faivoiir of a fhird party. Therefore, the action ofthe pubUc service comTnission cacmot be held to be unsustainable. 5. Therefore, we fiitd no good ground to interfere with fhe unpugned order passed by fhe leamed siagle judge. However, fhe order passed by the leamed single judge or this Court ia this writ appeal would not be an impedimeut to consider fhe representation of fhe writ appeUant by the Ghhattisgarh. Public Service Commission and it wiB be open for fhem to take a decision at fheir own kvel. 5. Accordmgly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. f<^0 Sd/- I.M. Quddusi ' Judge Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge