CORAM. HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J ‘IGN’BLg SHR! PRASHANT}KUN‘AR MISHRA J Writ Apneal No.35 of; 2016 Santram Aneshwan S/o Ramiai nncahv'Varl, ayed abGut 36 YEura O‘u, ‘Rfo VlHaoe - Aamner PO — Chandl BaarAbLzarpul, District aipu‘ (Cu) Agplicant VERSUS ‘ State of éG through Secretary, Adim Jatt Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vékas Vibhag, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Co§nmissioner; ,Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Wkas Vibhag, DKS Bhawan, RaEpur (CG ‘ The Collector Aadwas: Vlkas Ralpm D's‘nctRaipuH ) The Hostel Superintendent Ansuchxt Jarjati uoys Haste! Bendn aha. — Abhanpur Dusklct Ramur (CG) Motllal Saytode Sio Chmta Ram Saitode Khamtara) beMnd “1e Jataram temple, Raipur (CG) Writ angeal ansmg out of the order gassed by the Hon‘bie Single Bencr Present : r Shn BK Chakrabarty, counsel forthe appeuant R $hn Klshore Bhadun Additional Advocate Genera) for the State l reepondents No.1 to 4 ' Judument ’ / ._ ‘ (15m February-3010) oi l @ DWISHON EENCH S R Resmndents ) . 1 The following judgment of the Court was passed by - Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ' ‘ ; ‘ Learned counsel for the parties‘ere heard on lA No.1/2GIO, a pelitlon for condonation of the delay in filing the writ appeal. 2) ~ On due consideration of the submissidns of learned counsel i for the parties and the grounds taken in the application we are satisfed that the appellant has succeeded in showrng suffICIent cause for the delay In filing the appeal. 3) lA Not/2010, therefore; is‘allowed and the delay of 52 days ,in tiling the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) ‘ Learned coUnsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5) Appellant Aneshwari has filed this writ appeal against the ‘ impugned order dated 27.10.2009, passed in WP ($) mama/200a 6) The appellant [petitioner in the writ petition was seeking, ouashing of selection of respondent N05 Motilal Saytode for appomtment on the post of peon on the sole ground that he did not belongéto village Aamner. 7) ’i‘he learned Single Judge, on a thorough consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties found that appellant/ ' petitioner Aneshwari never applied for the post of peon and he only sent his Bio-data to the authorities the notificatron (Annexure P12), clearly mentions that in the event of‘non availability of a candidate : ' from the same \l'itlage, the authorities could appoint la person belonging to a nearby village. The learned Single Judge, x ‘ > thérefore, dismissed the appeuant’s writ petition as reSpondent' N¢.5 Motilal Saytode belonged to nearby village Khamtarai. 8): r Shri BK Chakravarty, learned coUnsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the authorities-have erred in selecting ren olal ytode referce t pllant neSr, as e beg to vge Aér ‘) Duri t cour i, lrd unl fo t peat od not dipte th apea Anehwa never mted any apcationg pintm on the st n d e ony t s b th UtS' t the n perted an f a p l the t et o non-avlay of an belon spondet No.5 Mti Sa in p?en o ape Ahwai h lons illa amn. 9 ng he se of hearng eane cose r he aplln cul su at pllnt sri subit pli'seekin apoent po of peo an h l sen hi io—data to e ahoritie hat notificatio mit ppomtmet o erson beonging to or Village in he ven f aibilit a cdidate ngig to the same Vilge. 1D\ due coan mission o lear ul ) ‘ On nsidertio Of the subs f ned conse f the rts ad, n View te aove entned od eats or paie n i of h b mio bra fure f te se, we do nt find ay it; e orde ich n nt n a Cur p 1 The writ apea: theefore, is liable to b ismised and is herey dismisd umarily. J Chief Justice E Prashant Kumar Mishra‘ la o h ca o n infirmity th impugned r, wh may warrat ierference i this infr ot apeal. 1) pl r e ds b se sm l - RV» ‘ f x i. d/- i i Sdl- . Judge I padma i R m S