Rii!iH171:^j'^.';?,i?^1,^^Sf-i^'Ksrf^sS-- ^•SSS' •W-SK'^T?. B^ ^B ^y\ s^'^ij-'a. "ai^ •^uTS n;^Ji€£lf^^iQI^^I^-M fc^SW3^i%-ss'lle £^£»S^^w?s-a nR&nl' s.ss'; ^y^.'i y a , '••^s vs^s. ^ar^a PU-^^^ i^°^^S30^ )S S'UOS €^S 3^.1!! ',£—El Wrift .^.^3 Dilip Kumar Chauhan, aged about 26 years, y/'o ynn r'unrram unaunan, R/o V'ilage-Bargarh, P.0. Sarwani, \'•/ District Raigarh (C.G.) ResDondents 1. State of Chhattisaarh throuah th< Secretary Schedule Caste & ^ Scheduie Tribe Development Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan RaipurfC.G.) 2. The Commissioner. Scheduie Caste & Schedule Tribe Devslopment Deoartment, Pt. Ravlshankar i^hf/^^^^if f^^yv-,y :"• @"Si-t;ir //~^ ^ '; \ jriivsrsiTy uanipus, K8.ipur (w.{^.i 3 Thp P.nll^ntnr ^Trib^l Hia\?alonm^nt \^'. i ^ i\^f ^j^l^?! S ^uf'^i^r^\^i l 3 ^ t tl^'^1 S L^ '^*^ V '''df 3 ^^7t»*IS 1 i T^rf' : ^ J» Branch), Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Scheduie Caste & Scheduie Tribe Deve'opment Department, Raigarh {•^.^y.} IMrlt under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) ofthe ^^r^^^^AS^><^.^.u3A us^s^ ^^_i^u^. *'.^ =^,5 . ^i AA r^^s.s^s^.s-, @.-n;£.x:^.3~^ ji. * ^^?i; ^•HHggii.i^y^itj__ri|15.|0_^y_yil IMPM^^I ^o i«?ivisgau ^^u^saj .^LUI,=_£W, ;ent: Shri Prateek Sharma, iearned. counse! for the a'opellant. Shri Kishore Bhadurl, learned Additionai Advocate General for the Sfate/ respondents. [11thAugust, 2010) iiBB SIB Bans ^{•^^•yf^ •;':/^, "'%, f .' !ll 1 ^ folio'wing judgment of the Court v/as passed by Kajeev oupia, (.;., Learned counsel for the oarties are heard on admission. 2) The appellant has filed this writ appea! against the impugnea o'derdated 03-08-2010, passed inW.P.(S) No. 3703/2010. 3) The appe!!ant/ petitioner filed the wrlt petition for the following reliefs: "i. That, this Hon'bie Court mav kindlv be Dleased to catl for entlre records Dsrtainina to the case of the petltSoner. ii. T'nat t'nls Hon'bie Court may kindly ba pleased to set-aside the impugned orders dated 25-05-2010 (Annexure P/1) & 02.07.2010 (Annexure P/2) and further be oleased to direct the respondents to comDlete the <^c^|?ir:t'|nn nmr:p%^ ^.'ithin %rs?f^ifT; nprirsri in sr^rtrirrl ^•^i^^-t.i^i 3 ^3 ^^ul^^?0 'ys ] ^i S3U ^S^^^i i t^ ^^/l ;^^ ii i ^t.lta/5^^; ^/J&li 3^'^- Wlttl ISW. iii. That anv other reliefy order which mav deem fit and iust in the facts and clrcumstances of the case induding award ofthe cost ofthe petition may be'given." 4} The petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking a dlrecticn to the respondents to proceed further with th° selection process'in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10-03-2010 which was temDors.ri!*/ staved vide orders dated 25-05-2010 and 02-07-2010. 5i Learned Sinale Judcie on a thorouah conslderation of th< submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner found that the respondents 'nave not given up the recruitmen.t process and it 'nas oniy been stayed temporarily on account of some compeiling circumstar.ces. iliff iUS '^'-»;»s ^ 6) C'n due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any good ground warranting interTei 7) The writ appeal, therefore, Is liable to be dismjssed and is herebv dlsmissed summarilv. c;{ T subbu Sd/- ChiefJustiee Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge