mmti C^\^5) C^> ^ ^~6^ ^ c^ THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP W.P.(S)No.5|^ /2011 PETITIONER: ^•^^:.^ ^•^^ '....^.^•^" ...•••"^•'^ ^^y ^- RESPONDENTS: 1) 2) ^3) 4) ^' Smt. Anita Gendre W/o l.axmi Narayan Gandre Aged about 25-years Resident of Village & Post office Bizradih Police Station- Palari District- Raipur (C. G. ) VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh Through it's The Secretary Panchayat & welfare department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The District Project Officer Zila Lok Shiksha Samiti Raipur D!strict-Raipur(C.G.) The Executive Offlcer Janpad panchayat Palari District- RaipurCC.G.) Suresh Ghritlahare Resident of Village & Post of Bizaradih , rjo!ice" Station Palari, District- Raipur ( C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER AURTICLJ^226_QF_THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC—78 ^TI^T ^T f^TT^ 'cT^T OT^TsFTlNr ^' ^7 WKdT^HT^t 'S^ ^|q|(r|<i(, ^fil^^Ko, fsT^RTy; lp.f).©i^o,^|)&/Q 200 ^TT^T 'q^T (llG<f^<st<^T) ^PTTW^f^T 3T^?T SB; Mon'Die ^nn ivianmara ivio 20-06-2011 Shri Ravi Maheshwari, cou This petition has been file chl^f<n4T1 'HR^if ^' 'fe^t <f^1^« ^3Tf?Fr3n^T lan^nnvasiava, ij. nsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panel l|.awyer for the State/respondents 1 and 2 on advance copy. 3 by the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider ciandidatyre of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Panchayat Coor<pinator in the iight of advertisement dated 25/5/2010. I Learned counsel for th4 petitioner ^ubmits that in the iight of }ts of Co-ordinator, one post was required to |n candidate but both the posts have been He submitsthat earlier instructions were advertisement, out of the two po^ be filied up from amongst wom^ filled up by the maie candidatej issued in the matter of selection |by the Ziia Lok Shiksha Samiti, Raipur. He further submits that the petjtione|r has made representation on 10/1/2011 in the office of respondent No.2, bi|it no consideratipn on this aspect has been made. Circular dated 19/10/10 women reservation has to be pi case, this aspect requires to be of Ziia Panchayat, Raipur shows that the ovided in iimited number of cases. fn any examined in the light of actuai number of appointment against the vacanc^ as to whether the reservation is required to be made or not. The petition^r, havjng preferred representation before respondent No.2, it is required ^o be decided after making necessary fact finding enquiry. Accordingly, atthis stage, instead of issuing notice to the respondente, deem it expedient to direct r^spondent No.2 / District Project Officer to ^y^^ .sa^ 3 i ":^^^-^^~^" ^TO^IT^W^ ~s^( "4i<4i<r(^, ^Til-M^Ko, f^ircry ^f^ v^ . Z^^l\] [200 -^ ^^ "q^T (^^^) ^n^T'^rf^ri^ ^ir^n^r^RW Deepti A' ..^. ^cfTW 1Rftc? 3?n^?T •—z- consider representation (Annexut respect of the same, within an receipt of copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is| recourse to remedy as may be avjaiiabie With the aforesaid obser/^tions, "^RfeNN '^TH^if ^f fe^ <i^^l< '^3?f^H3n^?T |e P/4) dated 10/1/2011 and take dedsion in buter iimit of two months from the date of aggrieved, he would be at IJberty to take to him under the law. >, the petition is finaily disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^iW^^^ ^"ll^, <H-li^lic<—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. -I