C-. ^-\&0' IN THE HISH COORT OF JODICATORE AT BIIASPOR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0^7 8 7/2005 •<^* EETIIIONER ^.^ ,.<.^°- ?vh°l ?^'~""". ^^•%:: ^,:...^;^'$^-1 ^•y-"""" ^- VERSUS <^ Krishan Kishor Tiwari, S/o. Shri Banshi Lal Tlwarl, Aged about 23 years, R/o. Village Dullapur Bazar, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kablrdhaia (C.G) BESPCaiDENTS •^ AV.^ ..^^'—-:^^^ r^^^% ^£.x^.-....-^^^ IS^t 0T1P^,""' i ^sy"""'^ ^ 'i^-.-<<^'y •'%-^^ ^•^v ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, DepartMent of Panchayat & Rural Developiaent, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C•G.} ^2. Collector^ Kabirdhaia (C.G-) ,3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pandariya, District Kabirdhaia (C»G) ^A. District Education Officer, Kabirdham (C.G.) 5- Krishna Kumar, S/o. Shri Chhavi Das, Aged about 24 years^ R/o. Village & P.0. Polml, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdhaia (C<G) ^6. Badri Prasad, S/o, Shri Sudhram, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Village & P.0. Bodtarakhurd, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdhani (C.G) ^7 < Ghanshyaia S/o. Shri Tiblu, Aged about 27 years, R/o. Village Kumhi, P.0. Bodtarakhurd, Tahsll Pandariya, District Kabirdhaia (C-G) >F" ^ ^8. Mohan Kxmar, S/o. Shri Jhanglu Raia, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Village Khairwar, P.0. Bodtarakhurd, Pandariya, District Kabirdhaia (C.G) 9. Kanshiraia, S/o» Shri Bhakdu Ram, Aged about 28 years, R/o< Village Manjhol, P.0. Dhobdhatti^ Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C-G) WU:T EETIIION DNDER ARTICLE 226/227 or THE CONSTIIUTION OF INDIA POR ISSIXMTCE OF WRIT IN THE N&TDBE OF CBSeSICIBXSa.. VKSDJOSaS, EROHIBITIOII AND FOR OTHBR SUITlffiLE WRII OR WRITS, QRDER OR OBDERS, DIKECTI<»1 OR DIBECTIGNS ETC. L XI-HC-78 ^l^dl sb^llcb s^r^Tpn^ra', ^Tn^^i^, ^^I<M^< .^^.i.^2^.^^ 200 5^ ^n^T^rf^ri^ cTST[3T[^T5h^i<=h $^ru^ /^ >Y< 311^1 <<s<tti ('ictt^sK^) 5^TTW^f?cfW^T 4-7-2006 Mrs Foir ; Mjrza, counsel Mjss Deepail Pandey, P^nel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1,2&4. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, ccjunsel for respondents No.5 to 9. Heard. By the instant writ petition| of India, the petitioner has que^ No.5 to 9 on the post of Shiksha) have been appojnted on the o{ten category seats i.e. unreserved free category.whereas, they betong t|3 OBC & SC categories and stand in the ST or female candidate. Even tl secured by respondents No.5 to the petitioner and they are more rtieritoriousthan the petitioner. !n view of the above sta Consequently, i.A.No.183 chi^I<n<41<rt ^i^^T^:fel=^'<Ri<^i< ^^rf^rw^T for the petitioner. under Article 226/227 of the Constitution Aioned the appointment of respondents Karmi Grade-tll on the ground that they ies, therefore, they cannot be appointed waiting iist of OBC & SC catego| againstthe open category. The petition is fully miscorlceived for the reason that open category is meant for ali, whether he is a(i open category candidate or OBC, SC, e candidates of OBC, SC, ST & female who stand in the merit of open c^tegory seats are entltied for appointment as open category candidate. Learned counsei for the p^titioner very fairly stated that the marks 9 are more than the marks secured by ^ment, the appointment of respondents No.5 to 9 is in accordance with tl^e scheme and rules, as such the petition has no force, same is liable to fa|e dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. 1/2006 stands disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^