i^S'*"''!ft> {:-•: 4,. i ^^!»£. "^^^ %,^ r3c7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shrj Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon'bleShriJustice RadheShyam Sharma Writ Appeal No.503 of 201 1 Appellant Respondents versus Vij'ay Kumar Sidar, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Navratan Singh Sidar, Occupation - Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Kachanda, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir- Champa (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Joint Director, Scheduled Tribe Research and Training Institute, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri Rahul Birtharey, counsel for the appellant. Shri U.N.S.Deo, Government Advocate for the State/respondents on advance copy. WriLAp£eaLunder_Section_2(Uofjhe_ChJiattisgarh JlisLCoyrt (Appeal to Division Bench) Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4th November, 201 1) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.: Heard on admission. 2. The appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal against the order dated 14-10-2011 passed in Writ Petition (C.) No.6092/2011. ^^.:- <^to •^ .^ J / 3. By the impugned order, the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellanVpetitioner. 4. The appellanVpetitioner filed the writ petition against the State of Chhattisgarh and Joint Director, Scheduled Tribe Research and Training Institute (State authority) for the relief that they should pass order/judgment on the evaluation of the evidence submitted for research, on the application of the appellant/petitioner for inclusion of Sawar, Sawara, Saunra, Sanwra, Saura, Sahra (?fcR, ^TCRT, ^T, ^fcRT, <9'*<i, ^R^r) in the list of Scheduled Tribes of the State of Chhattisgarh at Serial No.41 within certain fixed time-limit at the earliest. 5. Annexure P-6, filed before the writ Court, would show that the concerned authority ofthe State had given opinion vide Clause 11.2 in the following manner: "11.2 srf^TOT ^l'l'll'y ^d·oc|<1*1 •^1'4101'M ^ ^fETH lft3 c^ f?plf3T STg^TN ST^gf^RT ul'lullfa c|?f ^t TT vRfdl, TRflEI-T Siaj^r gw? ?pT gftoR ^l^j ^WS^ ^ ^\ t \ 3RT: •m^r wfi^ SM "IT^ ®.7T. ^i 3^^f^ 'j\^v\\R\ ^t ^t ^t Sf^^ich 41 TR Sawar, Sawara (WR, WRT) c^ wa-r Sanwara, Saunra (WRT, •?ff^T) V^ ^ •^ 1^3TT ^TTrTT y'i'dlRd t |" •6. A full reading of Annexure P-6 (at pages 23 to 25 of the writ petition and pages 30 to 32 of the writ appeal) would show that the above opinion, which was sent to the Central Government, has been refused by the Central Government. ^( K 7. The appellant/petitioner, without impleading any authority of the Central Government and without filing any record relating to the above refusal, intimated through Annexure P-6, had filed the writ petition for the above relief. 8. The writ Court has held that the request of the petitioner was already considered and the same was forwarded to the Central Government for consideration, which had been rejected. Therefore, the instant writ petition, seeking the same direction again, would not be maintainable. The writ Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition summarily. 9. After going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 14-10-2011 passed by the writ Court. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (;., SdA ' Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge