Arm HIGH COURT OF CHHA’IWI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT FETH'ION (S) No. 3925 of2008 PE'I‘I’UONERS ; Jan Sing’hy aged about 30 years, S/o Late Dev Lal Kangey I’reSemly workirig as comtable, posted at OAR 5L“ Battaliom Jagdalpur, Distt. .Jagda}pur (C.G.) Jagdish Prasad Gautam aged about 32 years. S/Q Shri Sriprasad Gawain, Pregentiy workjxig as constable, posted at CAR 9m Battalion, Damewatizg Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 3. Vijay Pratab, aged about 31 years, s/o Shri Didnath Smgh, Pfesemiy workmg as cmstabie‘, posted at (“AF 2““ Banalm Sam, Bilaspur (CG 4. Ramesh Yadav, aged aboui 29 years, s/o Smi Suresh Yadaxg Presently working as censtable, imgted at C.A.F. 2nd Battalion, Saki, Bilaspur (OGJ Manlsh, aged about 3G yeam, S/o Gulab Chand Shanna, Presently working as coustable, posted at CAR 2““ Battalion, Sam, Bitaspm (ca) 6. Krishna Pal” aged about 23 years: s/o Shri Kunjar Prasacl, Presently working as constable, posted at CAF. 6m Battalion, Raigarlg (CMG’) 7. Dev Lal, aged about 30 years, 3/0 Late Santosh Suyja‘l, presently werking as Constables posted at CAR 6”“ Battalion, Raigarh {CGJ 8. Sushil Kumar ’l‘iwari, aged about 31 years, sfo Shri Surist Tiwafi, Presently werking as Constable, posted at. 6m Battalion Ralgarh (CaGy) 9. Krishna ?al Shivastava, aged about 28 yeats, sh) Shri Narayan Shrivastava, Presently working as constable, posted at CAF. 8““ Battaliorrg Rajnandgaon (CG) 10. Sail Kumar Kaushik, aged about 30 years, s/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Kaushikm Presently working as constable, :posted at C.A.F. 2nd Battalion, Sakri, Bllaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l. State of Chhattisgarh, 'l‘hrouglt the Secretary, . Department of Home Affairs, Marztralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director General of Poliee, Police Head Quarters, Raipur (C.G.) Dlreetor General of Clmattisgarh Ai'meé Force, Bhilai. Distt, Burg (C.G.) Additional Director General, Clrhattisgarh Armed Force, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Inspector General of Police, Chhattlsgarh Anned Force, Bhilai, Distt. Durg §C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Ln Q) 4A C . ) @ SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Present: Shi'i Awmd Dubey, Pam! Lawyer for the State/1‘6Sponcisnts, QRAL ORDER (Passed on 215: day of April, 2009) The peiitioners seek a writ of mandamus/direction, inter aim, not to conduct fresh training course of Armorer without declan'ng the result of the petitioners, who have already undergone training course of Armorer. The facts, in nutshelL are that the petitioners are constables of Chhattisgarh Armed Forces. They were selected by orcier dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure P/2) to undergo Armorer training and accordingly, they have undergone training Ii‘om 15.01.2007 to 19.05.2007. 1n the midst of the training, the training course was cancelled and no resuit was declared thereafter. $hri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits i that the petitioners ought to have been given priority in sending them again for training course as they have completed more than half ofthe training course as without any fault on their part, the course has been declared caneeiled. The respondents are nroceeding with a. fresh batch ignoring the claim ofthe petitioners completely knowing hilly well that the training course ofthe petitioners have been Cancelled- in the midst of the course. Shn' Shrivastava fluther submits that new persons are being sent for training course without giving any weightage or preference to the petitioners who have already completed 828 period ofthe training GourSe . Shri Dubey, learned Fanel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, on the basis ofreturn dated 10.09.2008, submits as under: “it is respectfully submitted that, a number of irregularities and deviations from fixed norms stipulated for the training for Annorer were revealed to the answering respondents. It is further submitted that on account of acute shortage of the training staff and other related shortcomings only 828 neriods could he undertaken as against the desiireo number of 1296 periods. it is submitted that, a number of relevant courses pertaining to weapons v training for advanced weapons like AK-47, Insas 5.56 man. 2" mortar, Tear Gas Gun etc. amid not be undenaken and even the browning courSe could r10: be mideitaken due to aforesaid reasons. It is iiu‘ther submitted that, since the post of Armorer is of extreme importance, sensitive and technicaRy cmcia}, the answering respOndents Constituted an enquiry committee to examine the cause of delay in declarixig fhe fesuit. It is mer submitted that, according to repmt dated 04.09.2008 suhmitted by the Cmmniitee, the aforesaid fmdinge were ascertained and hence, it was expedient on the part ef the axiswering respondents to camel the entire coume for selection. of Constable Almorers. Hence, on account of aforesai'd fact and circiimetanees of the ease the hietam petition deserves to be dismissed.” Be that as it may, the petitionets cannot be faulted with for the defects and deficiencies in the training programme. It. is evident that the petitioners have completed 828 periods of the total desired 1296 periods. it is therefore incumbent on the respondent-authorities to ailow the petitioners to complete the remaining period ofthe training course. Having regard to the facts situation ofthe case, I do not find any reason not to give preference to the petitioners/constables, who have competed 828 period oftraining course. It is always better if the training is in continuation. The petitioners are entitied to preference and weightage. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that while sending other constables for Aimorer training course, the respondent authorities should consider granting weightage or preference to the petitioners. 8. In View ofthe foregoing: this petition stands disposed of: No order asto costs. ’ " Sd/- _ ii Satish K. Agnihotri Judge