^ WHWWW^ 's^ r^wwi{, y-dl^^Ko, [s«ni^^< ^...C^±.:..f.d::J..^..L.........^200^ l3ff^I 'q^^ ( ^?!^^) ^I^T^TfN^ ^Tair^y^TRN^ ^,^ h~-v ^ 1'^iT^R'^^ ^¥1 w ^s^^i^ 'wT^ff^f^s <r»j-^j< ^'3tRR3H^T Petitioaer{sl Shifc Gaiada S/o Director, Raipur, Rajiv Ga J.R.Daai Raipur, Rjam Chaiidrakar, Aged ~ 48 years, Arjun Lal Chaadrakar, Deputy Department of School Education, tresently workiag as - Joiat Director, |adhi Sliikslia Mission, Raipur, R/o |Govt, Girls Hr. Sec. School Caiu-pus, ^istrict-Raipur (CG) ^ersus Respondentfsl 1. SIiii Naii{l KLiiuai', State of (phhattisgarh, Through |- the Secretaiy, Depai'tai^iit of School Education, Maatrala^a, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Shri Bibi The Und< State of i Departia| Maatral^ S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRlA MISHRA.. J. 12.08.2008 Shri TK Tttvari, counsel for|the petitioner< Heard on adinission. thls The petitioner has fUed of the Constitutiou of India read Courts Act, 1971 for iaitiation respondents on the allegations charge-sheet dated 10tb July, 20(j ^aaa Ttrki, T Secretary, ^iliattisgaili, ?nt of School Education, ya., DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) contem.pt petition under Article 215 wifh Section 12 of the Contempt of of conteiiipt proceediiigs agaiast the t|iat tlie respondent No. 2 has served a )8 (Annexure C/7) upon tib.e petitioner WW^ ^T^T IK^Tc^, ?.T5HicTT^ —FS/i97—3/2008—40,000. --^:^': '•^ ,^ ^... ^" &SS^^fi- ~?^ ^i^Kn^, ^•ai<-i^(o, [®j<ni<-i^< _..G^:.a;....i..°)..&.., ^200^ ^T^T ^^ ('^3^^r) 3???^!^T'?^t^' WT^?^r^^N^ ^^FJ ^T^PT l^rw^ft^^i^i 2. m. utter violation of Uie order Court aad tliereby committed dat^d 16.11.2005 (Amiexure C/1) ofthis wiUful contenipt. Leamed couiisel for the| 312/2005, "Nand Kishore Dwive^i & others" and W.P.No. 599/20(|) State of Chhattisgarh & others'\ respondent, were filed challengin| post of Deputy Du'ector ia Otiit categoiy. The aforesaid petitiont connected writ petitions vide ord| ChaUenge to selection of fhe petittoner of the aforesaid order and his se| observations: S2^. ............... His selecti W.P.No. 599/05 on i.he gr^ requisite experience, as Director, Vide Annexure R-i about his entire Service docuineni zuould show Higher Secondary Schoolfc^ and had also worked as years, 3 months and 6 da^ poste. Apartfrorn this he also. Tfze arguinents acjcepted. The selection Chmzdrakw cannot be set Unsuccessful candidate N^ Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nc|. <^<^fa<fl^ 'RT^ff^^S iFsi^K ^aEiRiHa^T petitioner subniits that W,P.No. [i & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ^5, "Mohaiilal Jaiswal & ofhers Vs, |iii which the petitioner was a party- the selection of the petitiouer to the ;r Backvvard Class (in short 'OBC'} were disposed of along with other 2r dated 16.11.2005 (Annexurc C/l). was considered in. paragraph-24 lection was upheld with tlie foUowio.g fon has also been cJiaUetiged in ^und that he was not having he fiad worked as Assistant \/1 of his retum he has shown career. The perusal qf this ih^it he had worked as Pfincipal rcjr 1 year, -1 months and 29 days \District Education Officer for 2 ^, zuhich are ihe ad^ninistrative h4^ worked on various other posts adv^nced on this groutid cannoi be respondent no, 6 Gand Ram df.side on these grounds." N^nd Kishorc Dwivedi has ah'eady filed .6245/06 before tiie Hon'ble Supreme ^l^i^tH —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. L-^" li; y/- '""^' ^^s^,. a^rffc^< aaS^" 7^ T<il'LII<v(^, yxl1'H4l(o, [®l<rft-H^< ^^^^..C^.:..M:M...L....^^^ ^¥f^^ (^i^^?) ^T^< ^T f^fe ^iT^H^T^'^te ^ft^BTS^T ^ ^ _ pendu^g ofUie Coiul aad the saoie is Service Commission (for brevity no.7208/06 against mitiatiiig i4\ Wtags on the ground of UTegulai^ CPSC and this Court had grante(l dated 24.1.2007. Respondent addressed to CPSC, aiid Annexi^ ofttie Govemor, has expressed Annexure C/1, tiie petitioner'sj enquiiy against Uie petitioner desu'able m view ofpendency Court. However, charge-sheet o{ has been issued to the petitione4 Heard leamed counsel for Froni pei-usal of paragrap^i- appears tliat tlie petitiouer"s| unsuccessfut candidates by wayj the ground tliat he, beiag a faU under fhe categoiy of OBC experience. This Couit, on the by fhe petitioner regardiag hisj tliat he belongs to <<Kunnf ca^t OBC. Challenge to the persjon expeneilice G^l€iw4il'RPT^ff ^f fe^t <f^^l< '^'^tRw^n^T adjudication. Chhatdsgarh Pablic 1 'CPSC') has also ffled a Writ Petition i4vestigation by the Ecouomic Offence aijity in selection of flie petitioner by the interim relief to tiie CPSC vide order ^o. 2 vide memo of Annexure C/5, (re C/6, addressed to Under Secretaiy |iis opuiion that in view of fhe order of selectiou caauot be set aside and regarduig his selection is also not appeal before flie Honljle Supreme 'Annexure C/7 dated 10th July, 2008 jdie petitioner. 3^1-24 of fhe order of Aunexure C/ 1, it selection was questioued by flie joffiliiig W.P. No.312/05 & 599/05 on belonging to creaaiy-layer, does uot jaiid fhat he was not havuig requisite Ifcasis ofdocuments i.e. certificates filed caste, which stood unrebutted, held te, which faUs under the categoiy of was also rejected by th.is Court on ^W^^ ^[-^ 4^11^, ?l^^l^!t^ —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. ~< '.?""""';'"; "^ ^' "•^s^ ^. &/ '^. ^-^/ ^sy 's^ ^ww^, ^Ti)^^i<c, [^dt<y^< ,...C^L^.^J1.L......•^|200<B (^3^T) ^^••j'^Tl^fe TOran^T^qN- h^"1^' Khan ^^R^^^it^ -^ tlie basis of experience certificatej his retuni. However, from penisal of] C/7, it is observed fh.at the cause as to why departaiental ei hiia for the aUeged misconduct Couduct Rules, 1965 as he pr^ forged experience certificate by p{ selection of fhe petitioner as Dep| Court relyiag upon fhe experie^ along with. his retuni. Howeve] favour of tlie petitioner, whereb^ conducting aiiy enquiiy wifh i(( certtficate subraitted by tiie the employer has eveiy right to| tiie certificates submitted by tliej appoiatment, , For the aforesaid reasons, Court ia. tlie order of Annexuj dismissed aiid is accorduigly, di^ Rs.5,000/-. ^Rta^N '^ITR^ff ^* fec^ <P»j'^K 1^>^RfH3TT^T aanexed by tlie petitioner along wifh Ifhe show-cause notice of xAunexure petipioner has been called upon to show ^quuy should not be iaitiated agabist jiuder tiie Chliattisgarh Civil Services ^cured appouitaient by submittuig a p^acticuig deception. ChaUenge to the (jaty Dtrector has been rejected by this ice certificate filed by fhe petitioner t*, there is no order by this Court m flie State has beeu restraiaed from ^gard to genuineness of experience petiliiouer for procuriiig appointi&ent and I conduct enquuy in.to geniiitieness of caadidates wifh their applications for this Court is of Uie considered opiiiion fhat iio case is aiade out for uiit|ation of contenipt proceediags against tlie rcspondents for alleged viol^tion of the observations made by tliis C/ 1. The petition deserves to be ?ir?Nn7T ^T^i ^^RT^TT^ —FS/!97—3/2008—40,000. niissed by iaiposuig exemplaiy cost of Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge