INTHEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR Writ Petition Noo?S?7/2004 <p £ETITIONER /^ Dmesh Kumar Soiikiisare, / j6!i ^V'^K Si' o R-eetani Das, ij,7'« ^>\ .. aged about 31 years, /'5^\.'^y'"\^ Occupauoii- Sei-vice, kT'^?^-;- Worfeaig as Juirior Sericulture Inspector, Clih'ralruta, R/ o Tikarapara, B-asna, District- Mah.asainund (C.O.), Versus- ; 1. Stats of CIiliattisgarll, Througll Special Secretary, Departtneat of Kural Industry, Mantralaya, Shasta-i Chowk, Raipur iC.G.j. 2. Cliuattisgarb. F3aadi Avain Gratii Udi'og Board (Hasth Shilp Prakosthaj through. its Maiiaging Dn'ector, Subhadra 1-liwa.s, C^ioubey C-olonjr, Eaipur {C.G.) .^f «?~'.^/ ^{y /^'^^^ '^ y. /" "\ ..'' WRITPgTlTIQJjUNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COi-lSTlTWlOliOP INDIA FOR__!SSUANCE_OFA WRIT,0_P C_ERTIORARI^MANDA&IUS QR A.NY OTHER WRIT__O^D!EECTION ID DO JUSTICE IN THE MArTER.. ^A-—<"i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2539 of 2004 Petitioner Dinesh Kuinar Sonkusare Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and anothcr Sia^e Beach ; Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Aguihotri. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Advocate with Slui Ali Asgar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Paacl lawyer for the respondents/State. ORAL ORDER (18th April, 2006) The foUowing order ofthe Coiut was passed by Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Jiuuor ScricultUTe Inspector ia fhe Industries Departmcut vide order dated 28.6.97/8.7.1997 (Annexure P/2) in the categoiy ofScheduled Tribe on fhc basis offfae caste certificate pioduced by the petitioner fhat he belongs to 'halba' tribe. 2. Soine coiuplaints were inade to the Goveminent ay.sdn.st several persons, including the petitioner, that they have been appointed on fhe basfa offalse caste certificates, produced by fheia. On fhe basis of the said complaints, the State Govemment by letter dated 22.6.2004 (Aimexure P/8) directed aU the concemed ofBcers, not to consider the cases of such candidates, against whom coiaplauits wifh. regard to • false caste certificate is pending, for promotion to fhe higher post. 3. The petitioner has filed fhis petition praying that the pending enquiry, the petitioner has acquired r^ht to be considered for proniotfon to ffae higher post. At fhis stege fhe petitioner seeks penidssion oftfais Court V/ to withdraw this petition with liberly to question the action of the State Govenunent as aud wheu occasion arises. It is further subinitted that fhe State Govenunent be directed to conclude the enquiry as earty as possible because the petitioaer is being deprived of his right for consideration to promotion. In view of the foregoing, fhis petition is dismMsed as withdrawa, wifh reserying liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps as and when cause of action arises. The Respondent/State is dipected to complete the enquiry, as eady as possible, preferably wifhin a period of three montfas &ova. the date of receipt of oopy of fhis order, as fhe impugned order was passfed on 22.6.2004, directing the concemed officers not to consider the cases of those caadidates agafaist whoin coinplaints wifh regard to false caste certificate is pending. No order as to costs. Sd/- Judge ablti