AMMENDED PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PET1T10N(S ) No. wig 0f 2011“ BETWEEN 1. Devendr‘a“ Kumar’ Rathore S/o, Shri» Mmi Prasad Rathore , aged about 36 years, Rio Village and Post Gataura, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). 2. Shlv Kumar Dhlvar S/o Ba1sakhu Ram Dhwer, ageq about 36 years R/o Vlllage 8s Post Gataura, Tahs11 Mastun D1stnct Bllaspur (CG) '3. Krishn Kumar Rathore S/‘o‘ Shri Bahadur Singh Rathore, aged about 36 years, R/o Village and Post Gataura, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). 4. Raj Kumar Chandra S/o Shn Dwarika Prasad Chandra aged about 37 years, R/o Vxllage Kmt Post Kmt D1stnct Janjgu' Champa (CG) 5. Chabilal Aditya S/o Shri Shila Babu Aditya, aged about 33 years, R/o Village and Post Saragaon, District ‘Janjgir Champa (CG), 6. Sandhya Parihar W/o Shri Sunil Singh, aged about 3O yeam R/o Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 7. Suresh Kumar Rathore S/o Shn Ram Prasad Rathore R/o Village and Post Gataura, Tahsll Mastun D1stnct Bllaspur (CG) 8. Krishn Kumar Prajapati Sio Shri Dwarika Prasad Prajapati, aged about 30 years, R/o Village and Posr Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). 9. 'Ku. ‘Kavita‘ Rathore .D/o Shri Ram Kishun Rathore, aged about 25 years, R/o Village and Post Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). ‘mys‘w‘ 10. Jagdish Prasad Sonwani S/o Shri Sonu Lal, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Nawagaon, Post Tikari, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). 11. Pitamber ”Rathore S/o Shri Dilharan Rathore, aged about 33 years, R/o Village and Post Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). 12. Ishwari Kumar Pal S/o Shri Kaliram Pal, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Khudubhata, Post Jairam Nagar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). 13. Parath Lal Keshkar S/o Shii Rajendra Kumar Keshkar, aged about 31 years, R/oVillage and Post Risda, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). 14. Ku. Seema Sandilya W/o Shri Sitaram Saridilya, aged about 31 years, R/o Village and Post Dhruvakari, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). 15. Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Gautam Singh, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Etwa, Post Koni, ’I‘ahsil' Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). 16. Pramesh Kumar Yadav S/ o Vridha Prasad Yadav, aged about 30 years, R/o Village and Post Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, Disu-ict Bilaspur (CG). 17. Sanjay Tiwari S/o Dilharan Prasad Tiwari, aged about 32 years, R/o Village and Post Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). l8. Rup Bilas Sahu S/o Shrichand Ram , aged about 24 years, R/o Village and Post Kirit, Via Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa. a? PETITIONERS‘ AND 1.,The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). ) C3? 2. The Director, Panchayat, Chhatti’sgarh, Rajpur, Distxic't Raipur (CG). 3. The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 4. The Chief Executive Oflicer, District Panchayat, Bilaspur (CG); 5. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). RESPONDENTS‘ h RIT PETI. ON UNDER ARTICLE 226. OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 6 W H w? é) M‘ I232. ll mm 200 swimm (Wu) {Emmi-am WW Wm %3ifmw%¥t SB : Hon’bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J. 23-06-2011 Shri Shailendra Dubey, cour sei for the petitioners. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawver for the State/respondent No.1 to 3 on advance copy. This petition has been flied by the petitioners who are aggrieved on account of non-consideration of t r candidature for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — iii, pursu nt to advertisement dated 13/1/08. itioners submits that even though the petitioners were eligible, their can idature was wrongly rejected upon which objections were submitted by the petitioners before the authority. it has further been submitted that the St te Government has also issued a circular (Annexure P/20) directing the au orities to scrutinize the eligibility in the manner prescribed in the circular Annexure P/20). However, objections of the petitioners were never consid red and the matter was kept pending for consideration in anticipation of ins ructions from the State Government and higher authorities. It also submitt d that similarly situated candidates were considered and appointed. When he respondents did not pass any order, a detailed and collective represen tion was made by the petitioners for ‘ We)“ consideration, but that has also not been considered and decided, one way or the other and now, fresh process f selection for appointment on the vacant posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade-Ill h s been initiated. l From perusal of chart (Ann ure P/20), it is revealed that the cases of the petitioners were kept pending anticipation of instructions from the State Government. The State Govern ent vide its communication dated 6/6/08 (Annexure P/20) had also issued d rection for scrutiny in the manner, directing Learned counsel for the ism, Wh—FSIuo—z/zm 1—1 ,so,ooo. h i t i Deapli in that circuiar. Therefore, the representations of the petitioners are required to be considered and decision on r objections ought to have been taken by respondent No.5. it has been br ught to the notice of this Court that the representatiOn hasremained pendi g without any decision. Therefore, it wouid be appropriate to direct resp dent No.5 to take appropriate decision on petitioners‘ representation and v rious objections which were raised by them. The decision shall be taken before proceeding further in the fresh recruitment. ‘ in case, the petitioners are rieved by the decision taken by the respondent No.5/Chief Executive er, it wouid be open for the petitioners to take recourse to remedy of appea as is avaiiabie to the petitioners under the provisions of the C.G. Panch yat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007. With the aforesaid observati ns I directions, the petition is finally Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge disposed off. mmw, mania—muo—z/zm 1—1 ,50,ooo. t i c g m av...~.f:.§.2m:..../2éa..2g,{200 mg? ‘ mm (W) W “mm ‘v? ’ WWW as arm am fvétWT