.,.••^"•1," HlGttCOURI-ORGHHATI'ISGARH^'FBIEASPUR DivisiohBericn:Hori'ble§liriDhirendralVlistira& Hon'bteSlirtPritinkerDhwgker,JJ WritADDealNo.151of2010 Appellant Retitioner Respondehte Amit Kumar Chaki, S/o Shri A.K. Chakj, aged about 29?ye^ A-58, Priyadarshini-KlagaT, Bilaspur •-{CG)^:.,.';-6..,-'.;;.:,.::.^ -Versus- 1. State of Ghhattisgarh, through the Secretary, ^ 1-lome i Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bl'ia^ten, Raipur 2. The Secretary, C.G. Publjc Service Commissiori, ShankarNagar, Raipyr •:(G^ /-'.: ':.f'l:;.:::y,:..:-'^ 3. The Exam Controller, C.G.P.S.C., Shankar Nagar, Raipur (GG) •PresSt^'?:::^.:^.'^'^'::-.:.o'';:'.'l'r.^;:';A : . ' • ShHpBarrneshiS^vastaxa^c^nset^^ .ShH,A.SMlSachHa^ha^[3%^3A^gfo|t|i'e^tatS,^^..^^ snrlGttahshyam F>^l,,A<^(sate;aCT^iFspn^^^^ Sinha, Counsel for respondentSIMo. 2 & 3/PSC. ORALJUDGMENT (12tnMay,2Q1(>) PerDhirendraMishra. J This writ appeal is directecl^agaihst.th^d^ passedinWrit,Petition<s}No.667^38,AmitKumar^Raki^^^^^^ othere, and otlier^nFieBtedwntpetitions,^ :bya:commonorder,:^::.../ r,;^l^-/'''^1-. .,^,,<. '::.':/; 02. Respondent-PSG initiated recnjiitmei^. process for^^ i^^ of Additional DistrictProsecutidnQfRcera^invit^appHGattpns^^fe candidates vide Annexure P/2. Wrjttgni eifflmination of ^ participating inther^ruil^ert pro^ess^^^^ Model artswer to the qU^ion pap^vras^pySislT^tt^F'S^^^^^^ and objectionsM®retnvited^fTomShe^Ryielat Withresp^ in the model answer and thereafter, amencled moidel answer' sKSeis we published byjncorpoj^ng numbeTofchangesmthemcde^^ earlier. ''•- : ..:.' • '' 'i:i •''''-••':.''\'':..':^ '.:',';': •'<••.•.':'".;••.,•:^S'~j .a. :-"lffi SB{ ^^g^^ 4 ;2'.: ;? .:v.:'.,-'¥-.';;.:'':~'" te per version of the respondent-PSC/ obj^ioos with i^ answer to as many as 34 questiQns were'reeeivect; ali the ciuestions alongwith pbjections were referred to the subject ^pert.and on the^^^^b^ their reTOmmendatiohs^ amendeii model answerswereprepai'edandOuestionNo. 30 InSetA, 20 in Set-B, 10 in Set-G and 100 in Set-D.were deleted and maximummarkswereallottedtothecandidatesagair^ttiesaidquesticms. 03. Leamed Goyn^l for the aRpellant ^ubmite that^-even the^^^^^^ model answers pubtished by the PSG are errpneous. It is not clear as to on thebasisofwhtGhmodelanswer.theanswersheetswerecheekedandresults were declaTOd. Thewrit petitionsJiave been dismissed witKout addressing the objectionsraisedbythepetitiQnerswithrespecttoamendedmoctelanswers. The petitions h^ also been dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessaryparty.thoughno'bnehasbeenselectedafterdueselectioHprocess andthelist6t327candidatesisofsuchcandidates,whoh^ebeensel^ forinterviewoiilyandthus.theywereneithernecessarynorRroper^partyfor the pyrposes of acijudication of the writ petitipnsand the petitions could not be diSmissedGhthe'grc^ndofhon^CTnderofflecessary^p^ 04. Wehaye heard learn^ coun^lM^^ Impugned-order.' s: ;! :::, : ';'• •''""::':' ';.'::.1" :'1..;,, :.::.::..;. ' 05.LeamedSingteJudge,afterc6nsidenngtheehtireargument&advanced bythepetitionersandafterGonsidenngtherelevarttjudgmentsoftKeSypreffle Cburt bri the sybiect-matter, dismissed ttie writ petitions on the Vrell^^^^^^ principles of law lai3 dcwn toy the Supreme Court in the matter, ancl also on the grpund thatthe petitioners did not join 327 canyidates,^w^ foundtobequaliftedintKewntteneXaminationandcall^f^ in the personal capacity w in their representatiye (^^ orderisstric^yin.aceordancewithlawahdbasedonthewells^^ of law laKl doyvn by the SyprSme Court. We tfo not^^^fi infjrmity in JtheAimpugned <>rder^ w^ appellate jurisdioton underSectton 2(1) crf the High <%urt ofChhat^g (Appea|toDivisioriBench)Act,2006. ; 06. Intheresult.theappealbeingwitboutsutastencecteer^tobeahd^ accordingty.dismissedattheadmissionstageiKelf. ^ . . • ' •.' Noordet asto costs. Sd7- Dhu-endra Mishra V • Judge Sd/- pritinker Diwakar Judge i^^^Kfe^ ^'"^^:::'•"^i;-•'^^:.^?ll:^:^^:?S);ii^l^N'! ^•/^:^^is^:SiSiiiSB^S^iS^ :S^r^^^ ^•.^?3&B'^<^7^7ui'&W lR^'Si^;A^i^S^^/—"^j£ri:S^'