y^^^ J L^- t^-^L e B©nch IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.V W.P. (S) No?^ ^ / 2011 PETITIONER ^" Dr. Pi-ashant Rawat, S/o Late Shri Bhirn Rao Rawat, aged about 35 years, R/o 114/B, Priyadarshani Colony, Raipur (CG) VERSU8 ^ RESPONDENT(S) \^ •A< State ofChhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Tribal Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur .2.^ Commissioner, ^ /'^\^ Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe i\^<S?''\V***** Development, Pandit Ravi Shankar <T^^$t^^ Shukla University Campus, /^'^.^*" Raipur(CG) 3.^ Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Through its Director, Adim Jati Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan, State of Chhhattisgarh, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Universily Premises, Raipur (CG) 4.^ TheDirector, Adim Jati Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan, Raipur (CG) 5. ' Secretary, Health 85 Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner above named, respectfully beg to submit as under:- ^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGrARH : BIIASPUR SINGLE BBNCH : HON'BLB SHRI KEANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. •, ^ Writ Petition (S| No.2823^2011 PETITIOSTER Dr, Prashanat Rawat Versus RESPOHDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Appearance: Shri P.S. Koshy, coiinsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents, on advance copy. ORAL-QRDER (Passedon 13.6.2011) Heard. 1, The grievance of the petitioner, ventilated through tliis petition^ is that even fhough tlie petitioner has been selected for appointinent to the post. of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari and possessed of a caste certificate, his case for provisional appointment is not being considered. 2. Leained counsel for the petitioner subniitted that initially when the petitioner was selected and ca-ste certificate was produced, he was asked to get it verified from the Caste Scrutiny Committee (heremalter referred to as "the Committee"}. The Committee passed an order on 22.9.2008 against tlie petitioner, which was f€Z... 1 -2- \^:x.^ '? challenged by filing writ petition W.P. (C) No.6600/08, in which an order was passed on 6th September, 2010 (Annexi.u'e P-16) on the joint submissions made by leamed counsel for fhe parties that the case is covered by fhe decision rendered in the case of Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria Vs. state of Chhattisgarh & Ors.1. Thereafter, the Committee has not taken llnal decision in the matter smce ataiost 9 monfhs, whereas, according to fhe directives issued in tJie case of Dinesh Kuamr Bhagona (supra), the inatter was required to be decided in 4 months, Learned counsel for the petitioner furfher submitted that as the matt.er is being delayed, fhe petitioner clairaed fhat he be also considered for grant of provisional appointiaaent till matt.er relating to vertflcation by fhe Committee is decided. He submits fhat fhe petitioner, in his representation, has clearly stated that such kind of provisional appointment diiring pendency of verification of caste certtdcate are being made by the State authorities and tJiat is the consistent practice. 3. On fhe other hand, learned counsel for fhe State brought to the notice of this Court order passed by the Committ.ee on 22.9.2008 (Annexure P-15) and submitted thiat earlier, the Committee had cancelled the certiflcate of the petitioner and though later on an order has been passed by tliis Coiirt on 6th September, 2010 in W.P. (C) No.6600/08, the matter is still pending. He fiirther submits that fhe petitioner could not have raised such grievance by llling instant petition as this issue appears to have been rai^d ' WP (S) No.3338/07 decided on 19.8.2010 -3- '^^y NIKN^ and not decided in favoi-ir of the petitioner while tinaUy disposing ofW.P. (C) No.6600/08. 4. As far as maintainabUity of the petition is considered, the subinission of leamed counsel for the State tJiat in view of order dated 6^ September, 2010 passed in W.P. (C) No.6600/08, the claim for provisional appomtment could not be raised^ does not appear to be maintainable. That was a case where the petitioner had chaUenged the order passed by the Caste Scrutmy Committee, In the instant petition, based on subsequent events^ fhe petitioner has come out with a prayer for consideration ofhis case for provisional appointiaaent The objection, fherefore, does not have miy force. 5. The petitioner had Challenged order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by fiUng W.P. (C) 6600/08. In that writ petition, relying upon the decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (Supra), this Court dtrected the Committee to proceed in accordance with the directives given in the aforesaid case. Therefore, the eftect and impact of the order is fhat order dated 22.9.2008 passed by the Caste Scnitiny Committ.ee looses its efficacy. A perusal of commiinication dated 1 Ith March 2011 (Annexure P-20) shows that the petitioner's claim for provisional appointment has been rejected primarily on an assumption tliat order dated 22.9.2008 is still in force. That is not correct m view of the aforesaid discussion. w a. ,ji '^^^ -4- ^ ^ ^ .r 6. The other reason assigned for rejecting petitioner's claim is that. tliere is no direction given by the Court earlier in W.P. (C) No.6600/08 to consider fhe case of the petitioner for provisional appointment. The representation, which has been made by fhe petitioner vide Annexure P-19 shows that tiie petitioner has claimed consideration of his case for provisional appointment on the basis of orders passed by the Govt. granting provisional appomtment tn smiUar cases of other candidates as also Ctrcular dated 28.11.2006 ofthe State Govt. This aspect has also not been taken into consideration. Therefore, it appears that the case of the petitioner has not been properiy considered in the Ught of fhe Govemment own circular, swayed by an erroneous consideration that order dated 22.9.2008 ofthe State Govt is still m force. ^ 7. Under these circumstances, it woiild be proper and expedient to direct respondent No.5 to properly consider the petitioner's claim for provisional appointment in accordance with its own circular, reference of which has been made in petitioner's representation (Annexure P-19), keeping in view that order dated 22.9.2008 has lost its efficacy in view of order dated 6th September, 2010 passed by this Court mW.P. (C) No.6600/08. 8. Witti the aforesaid direction, fhe petition is tmally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen