(13 / C ‘ f2W n 0 my” » by IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE g‘H-I'ZXTTI33ARH AT. BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. i géz OF 2001, , V Tej ram Pat el , Son of Shri Baluram Patel, Aged about 3O years, ’ “ Resident of millage Gejamuda, Pqst Kirodimalnagar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. PETITI ONER VERSUS Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhatti‘sg arh . Additional Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhatt i 5g arh . Janpat Panchayat Raigarh,‘ Through: its Chief Executive Officer, Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. y of ‘my’y, WRIT PETIION UNDER ARII CLES 226/227 OF Tag? CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f T 3a WW, m, %§m¥$ WW i wzQO‘ WWW (Wat) mmm mmarfwm *«mf‘mwhi 1310112005: - Shri B.D. Guru learned couns at for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer, or" the State/respondents 1and 2. Shri S.K. Beriwal learned co'unsel for respondent No.3. Heard finally with the consent of the respective parties. Brief facts of the case are t in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Janpad Panchayat, R igarh for appointment to. the post of v shiksha Karmi Grade-Ill under the ules of 1997, the petitioner applied seeking his candidature in the y ar 1998. The selection list was published on 08/07/1 998. This list as for fifty-two candidates. Learned counsel appearing the petitioner submits that out of fifty-two, seven candidates did notj in on the said post and seven fresh candidates were appointed from a ongst the wait list candidates on 14/09/1 998. He further submits th t against seven persons appointed vide Annexure-P/4, two persons did ot join on the said post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-Ill. To meet the situation, a meeting of Janpad Panchayat took place‘aon 28/01/1 ‘9 and two persons namely Smt. Pushpa Kankadwal and Jayant Ku ar Patel wereiagain appointed on 06/02/1999 vide Annexutre-P/5. arned counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that ugh he'was at Sr. No.1 of the waiting list of the general candidate , his case was not considered and other persons by other means we e appointed to till up those posts which could not be nlled up in the rst stroke of appointment. Further submission of the petitioner is that ough vide order dated 15/09/1 998 o .g/J 12/2000;50,000. . RPRJ FS/3SO / f h r n e o G Karmis were appointd, but no (Annexure-I14) ight more Shik P e s action s taken on the case of pitioner. He lso submits at ‘ Icong to ali thee situation, the titione preerred an appeal beore wa t e et a th ‘5 ki s er f f the Coiiector, Raigar he Coll r, Rairh dismissed te ppel of the peioner vie order dat 21 2000 (Annexure—P/1 5). Learned counsel urther ubmits that agai the aforesaid order passe by the Cle a d e m au ilp. e a isse de 7/ h. T e o ga h aa tit d ed / 2/ f s n t d olctor, a revision ws preferre before th Comissioner, Bilspr Division, Basur But th revision s also dmisd vi order dated 204/2001 (Annexure-P/1). Ar bare perusal of te or of the Commissioner, it ranspires fte h d r t t S 5 n til g with the memo reision and the arned Commissior fter earing this application dismissed he s and in conquenc the ntire revisn as ismisd. No r ns for dismissal of the aforsaid applcation as assigd y th mmissiner in t oresaid order dated 27/04/2001. A perusal of th order dated 21/02/2000 passed by the Collector shows that, in fact, he petitioner had filed this appeal against a resolution dated 28/01/19 9. Learned Collector has observed that according to the provisions o the Rules framed under the MP. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, thirty ays’ time has been prescribed for s tiled on 05/01/2000. Learned Collector has also held that the appeal was apparently barred by limitation and there was no applicat on for condonation of delay. Since the appeal was barred by limitation the same was dismissed in the first instance against which the said re ision before the Commissioner was tha an application under ection of thb Limitatio Act was ed alon tiling of the appeal. This appeal GRPRJ——FS/350 12/2000 50,000. a e of v e ne a h t a e see e io w dse ea o e i w ne b e oo he af a . w? .......\36%......mmm >mm (W) WWW ~3 .. VWW W1‘WR 3mi§m3ifé¥r flied. ' Learned counsel further s ts that in fact, the case of the petitioner remained untouched in oth the Courts on the basis of technicalities of Iaw. He prays that n opportunity may be awarded to the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay in relation to the appeal filed before the Collector ide Case No.6A-89/99-2000 and the Collector may kindly be directed hear this application and decide the point of limitation. in the opinion 'of this Court, th technicalities of law are not to be brought in the process of advancem nt of justice. if by mistake or for any other reason or for lack of knowl dge a duiy constituted case is not tiled before a Court of law. it always ffects the right of the parties and the said party is deprived from getti g justice and right of hearing on merits of the matter. WW . Considering the facts and circ mstances of the case and further considering the broad features of th matter. it is apparent that none of the statutory authorities have touch dithe case of the petitioner on merits. ln the opinion of this Court e ds of justice would be served if an opportunity is awarded to the petitio r by remanding the matter before the Collector, Raigarh. s ln the result, the impugned orders (Annexure-P/15 and P/1) passed by the Collector as well as t e Commissioner, respectively, are quashed. The matter is remanded back to Collector, Raigarh. The Collector, Raigarh is directed to r -open the matter namely Appeal Case No.6A-89/99-2000 on his tile. The petitioner is directed to file an GRPRI FS/350—12/2000 50,000 u i WW; War, Wiw . w? 33% WW mam w (Wm WWW —— 14 — / mzom WW fg€rm ' §€aifaqmé¥r n tion of delay along with suitable period of one month from today. lf :ollector after hearing the parties i its own merits in accordance with appropriate application for condo affidavit before the Collector within such an application is filed, the ( concerned shall decide the same or law. With the aforesaid directions finaliy. Let a copy of this order be who shall hx the appeal for app: 07/02/2005. Accordingly, the partie: .the Collector on 07102/2005. 52%- z, the petition stands disposed of sent to the Collector immediately larance/hearing of the parties on i are also directed to appear’before ‘ Sdl- Judge iSunil Kumar Sinha ‘ l GRPRI FS/35U—l2/2000 50,000.