t.iiUi IN THB HIGH COURT OF JUDXCATURE OF CHHATTISGARH Jk.TBILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1 {2006 PETmONER t? oV<^ \^^ ^s1'" .^ou' ^••" .^.-" ^' RESPONDENTS 'll^; 'x fs ^t •t.annl.f ^ ^ ^^1 ^f^y s'sssxfssei.y -r b VERSUS /1) 2) Haravansh Das S/o Late Shri Chhedi Lal Aged about 35 years . R/o- Bharat Singh ( Ex.Railway Driver), Adarsh' Nagar, In front of - Anand Niwas, Sirgitty Bilaspur, Tah & Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh Through : Secretaiy, Law 8s Affairs Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur(C.G-) Advocate General Office, Through: Dy. Secretary Bilaspur, Distt-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT(S) OR ORDER(S)OR DIRECTIONfSl T ^' ^(.--Z- sn^i^iT f?:]R?3IS?I WWHfttT -4- ^5T •SITqRPT, 'gWffT?., T^iRT ^.W^Q..^g^^ aii^rwnw^fef »*iw!fi41-tin*R]f fl tezt ^ 3lf5!W •3:II^I 2S-d-200e: - Shri Manoj Paranjpe, cour|selfor the petitioner. Shrj G.K. Beriwal, Dei^uty Advocate Generat for the State/ re5pondents. Heard iearnedcounselferi By the instant petition. fh^ offlce of Advocate Generai, StaN that he was appojnted yide orde Disfrict Shahdo!, M.P.. The petij been notifled as 3.T. in the StaN phepartles. petitioner, who is working as typist in the of Chhattisgarh, has questioned tegaiity, vaiidity and correctness of ths ^rderdated 14-12-2005 (Annsxure-P/13) whereby the services of the petitjoner have been tsrminated on the ground dated 19-7-2005 on the post of fypist as a S.T, candidate based on the ^ertincats issued by Tehsiidar, Sohsgpur, tioner betongs to Panite caste which has of M.P. underthe Presjdential S.T.Order issued in the yoar.1950 whaj'aas, said Panika caste has not besn rscognised as S.T. in th& State ^f Chhattisgarh, as such his appointmsnt was iljeggl, therefore, his service^ have been terminated. The main grievance of advsriissment issusd by the the petitioner te that pursuant to fhe f^ftf^ ^ --i^ !( < toe of respondent No.2, Annexurs-P/2, dated 14'" May 2005, for the p<pst of typist, fhe petjtioner applied for the sa<d post as a ST candidate shofying him to be a resident of W.P. and said appiication of tha peiiiionsr wa^ scruttnized by the SeisetJon Committss, ,gnd thereafter he was setect4d. The petitjoner had not conceaSed anything. As the petitioner was advertisement it was mentione du!y seiected, therefore, respondenis are notentiSied to cancei or recali fi'jat appointroent order. Furthsr, that ',n ths WUiithat the applicants who are the residents of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pi^desh are entitied for the appointment. it [^Sfigir .!< XI-HC-22 -s^ ^iraRra, 's^tsw. '&cirey sn^T^ii l^iN'sn^r ^[RT'Rfgg 311^1 TRlIWTlfei A- qiNcrit1! WTOf if'fet& WiR?r( ^? SlPgtT 3Ilt?T was not mentioned that the ST or SC candidates of M.P. shali not be entitleci in that categor/ for the apjsointment. Therefora, the impugned order be cauashed. Repiy of the respondents ts that the bsnefit of reservation to the posts meant for SC/ST/OBC can be|g!V8R to ths residents of Chhafflsgarh State only. !t is true that the appli.bations were Jnvited from fhe eiigible candidates of State of M.P. as wei| as State of Chhattisgarh, but in the garb of that the petitioner cannot b^ extencied the benefit of reservation. in this connection, provision of Artiijte 342 of the Constitution of !ndia is ctear which env'sages that "the Pre^ident (may with respeet to any Stats) aftsr consu'tation with the Goyern^r t"/ public noSiflcation, specify the tribes or triba! communities or par*^ of or groups within tnbes or tribat oommunities which shail for th®pur^oses of this ConstituSon be deemed to be Schsduied Tribes in reiation to jhat Stats. Shri Seriv/al argued that th®4®rd"in reiation to that State", ussd in Artiele 342 of fri^ Constjtutjon of indife mandates fhat the benefit ofST can be sxtsnded to those ST y/hp a^e resi'a's"ts of that State, as ihe notificaticn regarding 5T has to be is^ued in rstatlon to tilat State on!y. Having heard tearned couns^S foi- the parties, i have perused the record. it is not disputed that SC ind ST have suffered disadvantages and denied facjiltiss fordevefopmen^ and growth in severa! Stetes. They are required protective preferences, faciSities and benefits inter alia In ttie ferm of ra-sen/ation so a-s tQ enabie Ihem to compete on equa! terms with tfte more advantageous and dev^ioped sections cf ths community. Therefore, ths benefit of reserv'atioii in respect of ST as envisafiedl in Article 342 of the Constftufion can b4 extended to the candidates who are ['(f^ ^.Rsi^ XI-HC-22 an^i^i 1?iW3?)^?I 9;t)wgfCT •s^ ^)pn?pr, 'g^twre, fsiMwy 3B^T'?R)RR'CTCT ^- Wlferft? •>lTO?ff •? fe^-(fSR^R •^s'Ptnsn^r residents of ths Siate whererecruit}n8nt is being made, as such iegaiiy, ths petjtioner was nof sntitied for artpointment on ths post of typisi in ths office of respondent No.2 as a ST cdindidate because he fe the resident of State of M.P. and belongs to Panifcal' or noSjfied as 5T in the Sfate c.f Chhi advertisement, the appiications wefl who are residents of State-s of Madli jcaste which has not faeen recognized attisgarh. tt is aiso true that as per ths -^ invjted from the siigibls candidates ^ya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, but by invitjrig appiications from the residenis of faoth the States that sannot override the provision ofArticis 342 ^if fhe Constitution of india. The ST of State of M.P. cannot take ,advant^ge of ths advertisement !t is not disputed thst the sppiicant, whiie jappiying for the posi of typist, ysry ciesriy and candidiy appiieci as aj ST eandjdate of State of W.P., the appljcatjon was scrutinized anti h4 was duiy selected by the Seiection. Commiiiee. The Ssiection Comm ©iigjbjlityof ths pstitioner that bsii [fss inadvertenuy fa'isd to nofcs ths a ST of M.P., hs is not entitted for appolntment in the State of Chhatti^garh as a ST candidate. To my mmd, uniess that mistake of fact is corresjted, based on that the petitioner is not entitled for any prctecSSon and rss^oriCSents wouici fcs within their rightto rectify tha mistato which occurrsdjon account of thg fact that Screening CQmmiitee failed to notice ineiigibJity of fhe petitioner. Fad remains that st the time of seiection, ths psflionsr was not tegaf.'y sntitied So bs appointed on the post of typist ak a ST oandidate. Therefore, for She above reasens, 1 do not find any 'ijegaiity or infirm'ty in the'order passed ths Dsputy Secretary of Advoc^te Gensra! Office, Biiaspur dafed 14- t"A/ Uf 12-2005. [^^fig^ Xi-HC-22 -ss ~^iTzn?ra, ^twTB, hwv.1 tirear'^tn^ ,sni?T^i 'fei?r3i]^i ?rRra"Hltg yarve sii^i'^giwgte A- o)|^i<T^'rf -4ljT^f ^ t^^ ^ aipipT 3fl^T the petitionsr was appointed on the At this stage, iearned coun^el for the petitionsr argued that since post oftypistand thereafter, vacanctes were advertised by other departm^nts, but he couid not apply for those posts as he Was aiready workir|g in the office of respondent No.2. Moreoyer, now, he is ovsr age, tijiersfore, in the interest of justice, the continuation of the petitionar as a ^enerai Category candidate be dirsctad for consideration. . 1 But, faci remains that the p^titioner was seiected in ths typing test, he is performing ihe duties, he is |iot being removed from-the sen/ice on the grpund of inefficiency and res^ondent No.2 inyited appiteations from th,e residents of bcth the Staies ^ Madhya Pradssh and Chhattisgarh. Tiieretore, it is appropriate snd! in e fitnsss of the case for the respondent No.2 that jf there is afiy vaeancy In the operi category; then thsy may consider ths continuanorj post of typist as a Gensral categor/| or appointment of the petitioner on ths andidat®.. With the aforegaid obseryati^ns, the petition stands disposed of. Parties are entitled fsr certifi^d copy ofthis order. - - Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo Judge y/ .•?K [-q^if^