2-1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH,, BILASF'UR W.A. No.111/2011 DB: HON'BLB SHRI 8UNIL KUMAR SINHA. J Ss HON*BLB SHRI RADHE SHYAM SHARMA,_J. APPBLLANT Petitioiier Aviaash Meshxam S/o Shri M.D. Meshram, Aged about 28 years, R/o Behind Gupta Hotel, Bodhghat Road, Ferozpur (wrongly typed as Frezpur), Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG) Versus RESPONDBNTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Scheduled Caste & Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2, State Level High Power Caste Verification Conunittee, Raipur (Tribal Research aad Tramiag InstitLition), Through tfs Director^ University Cainpus, Raipur District Raipiir (CG) 3» Director, Directorate of Fisheries District Raipur (CG) WRIT APBPAL U/S 2 (11 OP THB HIGH COURT QP CHHATTISGARH APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT, 2006 R/W RULE 157 (10t OP THE HIGH COURT RULBS 2005 Appearance: Shri Anup Majunidar and Shri Basaiit Dewaagan, Advocates for the appeUant. Shn A,S. Kachhawaha, Dy, Advocate Qeneral for fhe State/ respondents. nT r'.; £\ I ^. ^-^/ "^%^^ ^ WANo.ll 1/2011 OHAL ORDER (27.08.2011) Sunil Kunwr Sinhe^ J. Heard. The appeUant/petitioner has filed fhis appeal agaiast tlie onier dated 24.2.2011, passed iii W.P.(S.)No.l050/201l by the leaiTied Siagle Judge of fhis Court, The appeUaat/petitioner ffled the Writ Petition for the foUowitig relief (s) : 10.1) That fhe Respondent no.2 inay be directed to veriiy the caste certiticate of fhe petitioner immediately wifhout deiiiaadiag pubUc docuiaents pnor to 10.08.1950. 10.2) That Respondent No.3 may be directed not to change fhe service condition of fhe petitioner or remove him from fhe service of Assistaat Grade III ia absence of verified caste certificate, 10.3) Any other reUefmay also be granted to fhe petitioner which this Hon^ble Court may deein fit aad proper ui fhe facts aad crrcurastaaces of tihie case, The writ Court, refemng to tlie decisions of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another V. AddL Comrmssioner, Tribal Development and others' (199^) 6 SCC 241 aad Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria V. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPfS) No.3338 of 2007 dedded on 19.8.2010, held that the petitioner, without waiting for coraptetion of fhe prescribed penod, had approached tlie writ Court seekiag fhe above directions. The writ Coiirt also held fhat it was not possible to issue such dit'ections at tliaf stage. The Writ Petition, therefore, was dismissed. t- .^ ^•ys»s|j •:^^ 'y ,...•:>•• WANo.ll 1/2011 -^ A^ 5\' Atter goiag through the contents of tlie Writ Petition aad after hearing, learaed counsel for the appeUaat, we do not fiind aay mfiroiity or iUegality in fhe nnpugned order passed by fhe writ Court, as the same is passed upon fhe earUer decisions taken m fhe cases referred to above. The Writ Appeal, fherefore, is Uable to be dismissed aad is hereby dismissed summarily. — Sd/- Sd/- R.S. Sharma Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Judge |