c HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitton No. 4543 of 2004 Petitioner Ramashankar Yadav aged about W yrs. Son of Kuidipan Yadav (Dismissed Arakshak No. 84 - 4th Battalion Vtehesh Suraksha Ba! Mana, Raipur (C.G.) at present Wo. Village Sardilpur Post Office Mu'dera, Distt. Batia (U.P.) Versus Respondents 1. State df ChhatCsgarh Through Secretary, Department of Police & 1-iome Affajr D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur. The Commandant -22nd Battalion S.A.F. Mana, Raipur (C.G.). The Commandant - 4 Baitalion S.A.F. Raipur (C.G.) 2. 3. The DJ.G. S.A.F. Biiaspur (C.G.). 5. The D.G.P. PoKce Kead Quarter, Raipur (C.G.). 1. WRIT PETJTOSN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF INDiA Singie Bench : Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri P. K. Tuisiyan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Depufy Advocate General for the respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on this 2Sttl day <rf January, 2008) Accordjng to the petitionsr, he was appointed on compassfonate basis in ihe 22nd Battalion ofS.A.F. Mana, Raipur, in the year 1^6, as his father died white in servtee. ASer formafion of the new State of Chhattisgarh his services were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. The pstifioner was dismissed from ser/toe vids order dated 24.2.2000 (Annexure P/1) on She ground that the pstitioner faitec! tvnce in the recrults tests (basic fraining) under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973 (for short 'Rules, 1973). Being aggrieved, e petitioner preferrec! an appeal which v/as dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.12.2000 (Annexure P/2). Thereaftsr the msrcy pefflion w^ 7-. ited by She petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 8.7.2002 w, 2. 3. 4. 6. '/3). Leamed counsel appearing for She peSfoner submrts that the identicai question, asto v/hether fajiing twice in recruite teste at the end of the training period entails the terminatlon from service, as required under Rute 37 ofthe Rules, 1973. He {urther sufemite that Rutes 37 and 38 of the Rutes, 1973, which have been adapted by the State of ChhattiSyarh, were considered by the Madhya Pradesh State Adminsstrative Tribunat, Jabaipur in O.A.No. 1207/88 (Mahendra Singh Vs. Commandant 11"' SatSa!ion) and other connected [Ttatters. Learned Tribunal vide order dated 18.2.2000, after having heard tearned counsel for the parties altov/ed tte petiiion and directed the rsspondents to reinstate the petitioners, forthvirtth in sen/ice. The case of the present petitioner is similar to that ofUiose, who were peffiioners in Q.A.No. 1207/89. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits Shat the submissions made by tearned counse! appearing for the petitioner are correct This case is squarely covered by the judgment and order daSed 18.2.20CX3, passed in the case of Mahendra Singh (supra) by the Tribuna!. Accordingly, this pefflion is altowed in terms of the judgment snd order dated 18.2.2000 passed in OA.No. 1207/89. The respondents are dfrected to consider the reinstatement of the peSJtioner forthwith. !n respect of grant of back wages, She respondents shal! take appropriate decision on the application made by the petitioner, v/ithin a period ofthree montiis. The petidoner shaEi be deemed to be continued in service for a!! other service benefrts. There shal! be no order asto coste. Thskiir Sd/- Satish K. Agiiihotri Judge