men COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S) no. 5814/2007 Ashish Kumar Ramtek6, S/o. Devji Ramteke, aged about 26 wars, R/o. Badhwa, Smt. Godavari Shesh, Kilalwani, Juna Bilaspur, Ward No. 26, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur(CG) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretay, Scheduled Casts ahd Scheduled Tribe Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) he Commissioner, Local Fund udit Department, 3-99, Near _ Pandey Nursing Home, Main Road, Samta Colony, Raipur, Distt. ' Raipur(CG) Joint Director, Tribal Research and Tmining Institution, Raipuf(State level High Power Caste Veriucation Committee), UniVersity Campus Distt. Raipur (CG) ’ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i (SB: Hou’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for theState. 'ORAL ORDER- (Passed on this 4th day of January 2008), Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits at the th petitioner, despite haying the caste, certificate dated 6.09.2003 issued by the Sub DivisionallOiiicer, Rajnandgaon (CG) as Well as domicile certificate dated 30.05.2003 issued by the Tahsildar, I Rajnandgaon (CG). The verification of the caste certincate was 'no t one by the respondent No.3 on the ground that the petitioner‘ha d s to submit land records showing possession of the land by him prior to 6.09.4950. Leamed counsel further submitys that the responden l PETITIONER RESPONDENTS T A ) t No.3 has ignored the circular dated 27.06.2007 issued By the State Govemment. The said circular was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the caSe of W.P.(C) No. 5070/2007 4(Narendra Dehan'ya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), w.P.(C) No. 5561/2007 (Ku. Anidta Badhiys (Minor) Vs. State of Chhatosgarh and Others) and W.P.(C) No. 5386/ 2007 (Gayatri Karoliya Vs. State o? Chila‘xaiagarh 2‘ G’Szers), wherein it was directed to consider r the candidature of the petitioners therein afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove, in accordance with law. 2. Thus, the case cf petitioner is squarely covered by the said decision dated 27.09.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State] respondent submit that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decisio dated 27.09.2007 of this Court. 4. In View of the foregoing, the respondent No.3 is under an obligation to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment and order dated 27.09.2007 passed in the cases of ‘Narendra Dehariya, K11. Ankita Badhiye (Minor) and Gayatri Karoliya (supra) and circular dated 27.06.2007 issued Lby the State Government. Let the needful be done within a period of two weeks. \ i v. U Isv w 5. The petition is accordingly, dispoM . g. J I sd/r ‘ i sash K: Agniw Judge @ t \ \ s n