'i^ :^--®@?g.., s^-r^ r ^^ s '\^.:^ PE' :ATTI8G ffUTTI >H3 ?N(S) Suresh Kumar Bhalla S/'o- Shri Baldev Raj ihalla Agsd about 44 years R'o Qr. No. 12/F, 03A Type Hospital Sector, F'ost Oflice Dallirajhara, District Durg (C.G.) 1 \ J- ^ 2) 5) State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secrstaiy, Awas Pan'awaran Avam Nagariva Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Distt - Raipur (C.G.) Directorate Director, Nagariya Niyojan and Vikas, Raipur (C.G.) District Selection Committee Durg, Office of Collector- Jila Shakriya vikas Abhikaran, Distric.t Durg (C.G.) Chief Municipalit)- Officer Municipal Corporation Durg Distt - Durg (C.G.) Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Chinta Ram Sahu R/o Banpela, Qr. No. HL-42, Jawaharnagar, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION L'MDER ARTICLE. 226 OF THE TITUTION OF JNDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AJPROPRIATE WRITfS) OR ORDERfS) OR DIRECTIONS(S) Shri Y.C.Shamia, Advocats for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dv.'ivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State / respondent no. 1 and 2.' 5. (Passed on 13ln day ofApril, 2007) ^a, By this petition, the petitioner sesks a direction to ths respondents to grant benefit of sports/gaines and resen'ation policy to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sub-E.ngineer. Fhe indisp'utable fac.ts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner having obtained B.E, (Mechanical), applisd for a.ppointment on the post of Sub-Engineer, pursuant to the advertisemeiit dated 05.10.2004 •yr- "~-^ 7. (Aiinexure P/10) in Nagar Palika Parishad, Charoda, District Durg. The petitioner bas been denied 5% marks as according to the leamei couasel, he is eirtitled to under sports quota. The petitioner vvas also not considered for appointment again.st the quota reserved for disabled person as the petitioner is 40% disabled in speech. I have heard the leamed counsel appeariDg for the petitioner, perosed ths pleadiugs and the documeiits appended thersto. It is svident that as per memo dated 07.01.2005 (Aiuisxiu-e P.'ll) the person havicg N.C.C. (C) Certificate or has rspresented in sports/games State or Nation, would be entitled to 5% marks as per clause 4(e) ofthe memo dated 7.1.2005 On query, the couasel is not in a position to point out asto when aiid how tlie petitioner lias reprssected the State in uational competitioa in sports/games. The petitiocer has aimexed certain certificates which do aot indicate his representation oa behalf of State in any nafional competition except that he has been awardsd some certificatss at the State level, Ths petitioner has rightly been decliaed 5% marks. With regard to 6% reservation for disabled caadidates, tbe petitioner has not produced aiiy document showing that the reservation policy has aot been followed, contrary to the averments made by the petitioner. Learned counsel appeariiig for the respondent 1 and 2 submits that fhe reservation policy has been follovved. The petitioner, even othervvise, having been found unsuccessfal in the examination cannot question the process and is debarred from challenging the selection process. This petition is vague and lacks material facts. For waut of material facts, no direction or a writ of mandamus can be issued in exsrcise of its extraordinarv' discretioDaiy jurisdiction undsr Aiticle 226 of the Constitution. As a result, this petition is dismissed summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit /.. ^ aeSgK^s^: •..;./-"