^0' ^' 0~1 HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPDR WRIT PE'lTflON (S) No. S90 of2007 Sunil Kumar Pandev S/o Shri Sfarinivas Pandey, Aged about 26 yeas, R/o. PoUce Coloney, Tifra, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSCS ;;• : State of Chhattisgarh, Throu^i Secretary, Revenue Dc(Mrtment, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Land Records, Raipur 1. 2. 3. (C.G.) Collector, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETmON U/A 226 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. ABiubotri, J. Present: Shri Ashok Dubey, Advocate tor the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Goverament AdvQeate forthe Stats/respondents. QRALORpBR (Passed on 02"'' day of Apnl, 2008) With the consent offhe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 1. The petitioner, by this petition filed under Article 226 offhe Constitution oflndia, seeks relieftiiat the respondent-authorities be directed to send fhe petitioner for Patwari trainine. 2. The facts, in nutshell are that the petitioner along with others caididates made application for selection on tlie post of Patwari, pursuant to the advertisement publisfaed in the monfh of March/April, 2005. Atter appearing in the examination for selection, fhe petitioner foimd his name in the wait list at serial No. 26 along with ofher candidates, in Geaeral Category. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner further sutauts that ths respondent authorities, ignoring claim of the petitioner, have sent the candidat&s who were iunior in the select list from waitine list No. 35, 105, v' 106,ll0,115,123andl33fortrainmg. TTie petitioners is at serial no. 26 2 ^ 4. Shri Ashok Dubev, leamed counsel appearins fur the petitioner would contend that it is a clear case of arbitrariness, disCTinunation and violation ofprovisions ofArticle 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Thus, the respondent authorities be directed to send the petitioner also for Patwari tralnmg. 5. Per contra, Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govemment Advocate appearmg fbr the State/respondents would subniit that no usetiil puroose would be served if the petitioner is sent for training. On the question of sending junior persons for trainmfe Shri Bakhshi has no submissiocs, as it is an admitted position, as it appears from the select list filed by the respondent airthorities, that persons below in the wait list, have been sent for the same. 6. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is well established that the persons down below in the wait list, ienoring the claim ofthe petitioner, tove beai sent fbr Patwari training. There may or may not be any consequential benefit, but the petitioner, being placed at serial No. 26, when tfae other persons placed below the petitioner have been sent for trammg, are entitled to the ». same relief. It appears to be a case ofarbitrariness and discriminatioiL and fhus, violative ofprovisions ofequality as prescribed imder the provisions ofArticle 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 7. In the light of afbrementioned, fhe petttion is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to send Ihe petitioner for Patwari training immediately. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatisbK.Agnihotn Judge Amit