mm mama , ’y ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (f‘ 1@_\ ¢ WRIT PETITION (S) No. {M3} Of 2009 Petitioner: RASHMI SUBBA, D/ o Shri Prem Bahadur Subba, Aged about 29 years, presently working and posted as ‘State Accountant Officer in the Sport and Youth welfares department Raipur, R/o — M.T.O. [workshop], Old police lines, House number 172, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) Versus Respondents /’ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through, The Secretary, General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. The r Chhattisgarh Public Service V Commission [C.G.P.S.C.]; Through It’s Secretary, Shanker nager Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Chairman, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission [C.G.P.S.C.], Shanker Nager Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) The Controller, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4831 of 2009 PETITIONER Rashmi Subba VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Vijay Deshmukh counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG for respondent No.1 Shri Abhishek Sinha counsel for respondent Nos.2,3 'and 4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,ORDER (07.09.2011) Challenge in this petition is to the astion of the Chhattjsgarh State Public Service Commission whereby the application of the petitioner fOr the State Civil Services (Mains) examination, 2008 nas been rejected on the ground of non submission of demand draft of Rs. 300 as required under the relevant Rules and terms 'of the advertisement. Name of the petitioner has been included in the list of candidates declared ineligible for the said examination, vide annexure P—6. Counsel for respondents 2 to 4, at the outset, submits that candidature of the petitioner would not be rejected merely on the ground of non submission of demand, draft as he has satisfied the Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission by submitting duplicate demand draft. He submits that the petitioner would be permitted to participate in the mains examination subject to his eligibility on other counts. 2. 3. In view of the statement made by the counsel for'respondents 2 to 4, nothing survives in the present petition and it is accordingly disposed of. I Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge