HIGH COT O CHATTA T BILP rit Appeal No 72 of 2011 xt I : APPEL'NT Petioer: Raju Slngh Portey, aged about 40 years Sl/o Ram Dayal Portey, by cast Gond R/o Korja Thana Gourela Pendra Road, District BilaspurkCG) Versus 3 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Sedretary, Employment and raining? Department, D.K.s. hawan; Raipur. r T B Colectof, Bilaspur l l.T.l. eputy v Director, oni, D K Bilaspur The Prin‘cipal lTl Koni Bilaspur l.T.l., K Shrlvastava Teacher Koni Bllaspur Present Shrl Parag Kotecha counsel for the appellant Shrl A S Kachhawaha Deputy Advocate General for the State r DIVISIon Bench Hon ble Shrl Dhirendra Mlshra & Hon ble Shrl R N Chandrakar, JJ J U DGM ENT' (25-2-2011 The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. . The appellant had taken admission in ITI Koni in August, 2009 and he was undergoin trainin in Plumber trade for a eriod of one year g g p . Grievance of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that he is ~ bring prevented from appearing in the examination on the ground that he did 'not‘attend Ethe classes regularly though he fulfills al the criteriafor appearing nthe examination of lTl. The’ students of lTl had made complaints against ' “Fespondent No.5 regarding his behaviOur and irregularity and because of th UR F HISGRH A ASUR W itn LA: RESPONDENTS: K ) . t f l - i e Ky ' \ ;V"l\ aforesaid complaints respondent N‘o 5 is not permitting him to appear in the examination He had lodged complaint against respondent No 5 to the Jomt Director lTl Konl as also to the Chief Minister of the State however when no 9 action was taken against respondent No.5, the petition was filed and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order.i i 4, Heard Iearned counsel for the appellant. Perused the records including the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted lthat from perusal of the " pleadingslin the writ petition,rit would be evident that allegations of malafide have beenimade against respondent No.5, however, the writ petition has been dismissed without notice to respondent No.5, which is not permissible ‘ as per thel law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of The y Yadavindra Public SchoolAssooiation Vs. State of Punjab & others {AIR 1999 SC 3373}. Since no action was taken against respondent No.5 on the complaint.(Annexure-P/2) of the appellant by the higher authorities, the appellant had a cause of action for filing the writ petition and‘the same could ‘ not be dismissed at the threshold. t i 5. So far as griievance of the appellant that in view of the allegations‘of malafide against respondent No 5 the petition could not be dismissed Without notice to ' him is concerned learned Single Judge whlle dismissrng the writ petition has directed the authorities to conSider the representation and deCIde the same in accordance with law on its own merits expeditiously. Thus, the ‘au‘thorities are obliged to consider and decide the representations made by it th‘e appellaht against ‘respondent No.5 and, therefore, not issuing notiCe to es‘pondentENp.5 does not prejudice the appellant’s interest in any way. a“. . . . > , r IW \S 61 From close examination of the pleadings in the writ petition andrthe » documents annexed therewith, we find that the appellant has med certain ’ photocopies of the documents to establish that he was regulariy attending the training cias‘ses during the reievant period and has been prevented from i appearing in the examination as a'vindictive rneasure at the behest of ; respondent No.5. However, no document has been tiled by the appellant. to ‘ ' sh‘ow that'he‘rais'ed his grievances before the? concerned authority, who 1 allegedlyvprevented him from appearing in the’examination. There is no lr order available on record issued by the respondents debarrlng the appellant 7 v ‘ _ from appearing In the examination I I 7. ln that view of the matter, we do not find any substance in this writ appeal. ‘, However, We disposeof this writ appeal with liberty to the appellant to make ‘ a fresh representation before the respondent authorities against debarring , ii - him from appearing in the examination along with a copy of this order within a period ofr.2 weeks fromtoday ' On such representation being made the " i respondent authorities shall decide the same objectively as per the relevant § rules of the lnstitutron expeditiously preferably Within a period of 4 weeks r from the date of receipt of representation Sdl Dhirendra Mishl‘a ’ " Judge - ,