t^- ^a^-^ y AMENDED PETmON ' ^'^'^: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHAmSGA^yte,."E::::;, "\ ATBILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0. 2..5-3'7 /2009 ^ %,'^. "^^^:. Sj. '» '•^. PETITIONER Krishna Prasad Gaor S/o Amrit Ram, Aged about 41 years, R/o Jhasi, Tahsil Surajpur District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT )«^^ •^r^ ^^^ 'V^ ^'W'^^'WiW-. S['?SS^@^^:'- ^ifc^.i^^';^'. ^:^Sil;:®s^ ;'^^*f;i^l: 1) State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretaiy Panchayat and Social Welfare Development Depai'tn'ieiit D.K.S. Bhawan. Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Chhattisgarh Professional Exainination Board Raipur Through Its SeGretary Raipur (&%.. '. . .'.;/. \ . .. •. ••.' 3) TKe,, Osief Executive -Officer, Jaxtgact Panchayat Qdgi, District Sarguja.(C.G.) .-, WRTT PETITEQN UNDER ^RTIOLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ll^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTK-GARH : BHASPUR smO^LE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI MAXtNDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. W.P. (S) No.2297/2009 PETITIONBai RESPONDENTS Krishna Prasad Gaor Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Pettttpa u/A 226 ofthe Constitution of India Aooearaace: Ms. Sudha Agrawal, counsel for fhe petitioner, Ms. SunitaJain, Panel Lawyer for (he State/respondent No. 1. Mr. Saineer Behar, counsel for respondent No.2. Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL-OR&ER (Passed on 27.6.2011) Heard. 1. This petttion has been filed by fhe petitioner for issuance of a direction to fhe C.G. Professlonal Examtnation Board to include fhe nam.e of fhe petitioner ui (he select list of Shikshakamri Grade-UI and also for a direction to respondents to conslder the case ofthe petitioner for appointottient as Shikshakanni Orade-IH. 2. According to fhe petitioner, the petitioner had applied for appolntment to the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III and after selectlon was declared by the Professional Examination Board, the petitioner was called for coimselling for the faculty of Arts on 6.9.2008 and for the faciilty of Science, on 7.9.2008. But -2- thereafter, the petitioner has not been given appomtment though petitioner obtained 35.86 marks in Scheduled Caste category and stood 5ttl in rank In the order of merit By placmg a circular dated 2.6.2008 on record, it is subinitted fhat the petitioner has not been given proper age relaxation. 3. Leamed counsel for the respondents have raised, dunng the course of ai^uments, prellminary objection wifh regard to the maintamabiUty of petition that the petitioner has an altemative remedy of prefemng an appeal against fhe grievance iinder (he Chhattisgarh Panchayat ShikshaKarmi (Recruitment & Conditions of Service), Rules, 2007 (for short "the Rules of 2007'). In addition, on merits, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the case of fhe petitioner was scrutfeuzed and upon perusal of the mark-sheet, it was foiind that fhe date of birfh of the petitioner is 13th June 1968 and therefore, the petitioner was above tfae age of 40 years as on 1.1.2009 and titierefore as per fhe applicable rules and the advertisement (Aanexure R-3/1), the petitioner does not hold fhe mmimum eligibility criteria relating to age and merely because he appeared in the examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, it wfll not give the petitioner ri^it to be appointed. 4. Learaed coiuisel for fhe petitioner sought to contend that fhe petitioner coiild not be held meli^ble. The petitioner has also placed on record a copy of green card and submitted fhat m view -3- s^ of fhe fact that petitioner is green card holder, he is entitled to benefit of age relaxatlon. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that there exists a remedy ofappeal iinder Rule 13 ofthe Rules of 2007. 6. If the petitioner is aggrieved by fhe decision of respondent No.3 regarding petltioner bemg held ineMgible on fhe groiind of over- age, it is for (he petitioner to prefer an appeal before fhe CoUector as provided under Rules 13 of the Rules of 2007. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter when fhere exists an efficacious and altemative remedy to fhe petitioner against fhe decision ofrespondent No.3. 7. This petition is fherefore flnaUy disposed of, giviag Uberty to fhe petitioner to prefer statutoiy appeal before the Collector. ta case the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of 3 months before the Collector, fhe same shall be considered and decided by the Collector/AppeUate Aufhority in accordance wifh law. Pravsen. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Slirivastava Judge